By Susan Miller
Published: May 16, 2015
WE LIVE in one of the most beautiful places in the world and there is an extra cost attached to it. But as the district drafts its new budget and plays with tax increase figures, I can’t help but think that living in paradise is going to get more painful. In the last few years, our taxes have gone up in a way that is unsustainable and will force more people out of town, resulting in a diminished tax base for the district.
Just look back at the past headlines and you will see how residential tax-payers have had to increasingly shoulder the tax burden. In 2013, district officials were debating an increase of 12.2 per cent, which was reduced to 10.2 per cent after concerned residents decried the massive tax hike. And, as many business owners will recall, the residential tax hike was accompanied by another increase of 15 per cent in utilities and 10.4 per cent in business taxes. Over the years, as major and light industry collapsed, the district has slowly shifted the burden towards home owners for taxation. In2000, residential taxes accounted for 48.6 per cent of the tax revenue while major industry contributed 28.52 per cent, but only 10 years later, residential taxes were sharing 59.2 per cent of the burden, while major industry brought in only 2.10 per cent.
So, how do we balance our need for revenues for our infrastructure with respect for the tax payer’s wallet? I don’t think increasing taxes for small businesses or houses is a viable idea. I think the answer lies within the District of Squamish’s ability to spur business development or cut back on costs rather than tax home owners or small businesses. What’s actually going on to attract new business to Squamish and what is this office doing to ensure we increase our business base to reduce burden on residential taxes? The DOS could learn a lot from Penticton’s economic incentives for new business and revitalization of their downtown core, which they have detailed very clearly on their website. Squamish does seem to have a similar revitalisation program but information about it is neither prominently displayed on the district website and nor is there information on how it has spurred our local economy.
The DOS also needs to seriously examine and reduce their spending on various consultants and studies and reduce the increasing number of municipal workers. Compared to Penticton with a population of 33,000 which has only 178 municipal workers, Squamish with only 17,000 residents employs close to 150 municipal employees. I’d also urge the district to look at The Beggars Checklist—A To Do List For Canadian Municipalities that goes into detail on how we can be cost-effective and save tax-payers money rather than just increasing taxes over and over again.
There are several relevant questions in this checklist that we can use to foster economic development and help tax-payers save money: Are we bringing salaries in line with the private sector? Are we selling surplus land and assets to generate revenue? Are we building partnerships with other government agencies and non-profits to make service delivery easier and affordable? Are we utilizing technology to reduce costs?
I don’t think we need to increase taxes but make smart choices at the local government level that save us enough to pay for services without reaching ever deeper into people’s wallets.
jean says
Excellent article
Dolores says
In agreement with everything written. Thank you for putting this to paper!
Brad Hodge says
Great article that reinforces points made previously. Chris Pettingil’s argument is interesting also.. the idea of trying to use taxes on the residential side to tamp down enthusiasm from would be commuters. Personally I doubt any form of commuter tax would be sufficient to have an impact on housing availability and cost.. Vancouver is so expensive, taxes would have to punitive to drive commuters out. And you’d be punishing local employeds as well as the commuting variety. Further, going this route just creates a well politicians will keep going to instead of doing the hard (and politically costly) work of cutting costs. We are just seeing Council begin to do this as it’s options for new revenue diminish. I would hate to give them an out now.
So I agree with Susan. Unfortunately a lot of what Susan recommends will never happen. At a certain point when the proportion of workers in a community who are public sector reaches a critical mass, they become a political force that is difficult to overcome. In the last election, CUPE spent thousands supporting council candidates with donations, which is the kind of symbiosis that eventually corrupts the political system, with polticians being dependent on union largesse and organization to help them win. Those that took union money will be loathe to anger their political allies. Everyone will be wary of the political costs of layoffs and lockouts, which is what it would take to make a meaningful dent in staff costs. I just don’t think Squamish Council has the stomach for that fight. None of its predecessors seemed willing either.
Bob says
One thing that always seems to get lost in this whole conversation is the tremendous amount of Crown Corporation lands within the District of Squamish that we receive little or nominal tax revenue from. Consider the extensive BCR and BC Hydro land running through Squamish. Sure there are certain benefits and values we/the District receive on some of these lands. However, when this is compared to the actual (full rate) tax dollars not collected, nor able to be collected, it could be stated that these corporations (read provincial government) are leaning on the taxpayers of Squamish considerably. We are paying their freight, if you will. If it were studied and documented, it may turn out that Squamish ranks very high in BC for such municipal subsidization of Crown Corporation/BC gov’t lands. It’s time we were properly compensated by the provincial government in some form or manner for this cost Squamish taxpayers bear: read provincial subsidy/or attractive tax breaks for small business and light industry/tech business locating in Squamish.
Spencer says
While I agree with a few points of this letter, I must comment to broaden the discussion:
Land sales are not a sustainable source of government revenue.
The taxes collected on single family homes do not cover the costs of the infrastructure and services provided to them. They are subsidized by the commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels. If you are a true believer in a fee for service model, then addressing this subsidization of a single class of dwelling unit is a must.
Federal and provincial governments have been lowering taxes, and therefore have been spending less in areas where they have historically been the primary service provider. This responsibility now falls to the regional and municipal governments if services are to be maintained (which they are not).
We need to make smart choices when electing a government at any level, and if a government is elected on a platform of “I will lower your taxes”, then be prepared for lower levels of service, because at some point in the future, the piper needs to be paid.
tjay says
Well thought out, and well written…. A rare occurrence here in Squamish…sigh…….
newport_observer says
Great article. Sadly it is so rare to see anyone in Squamish engage properly with this issue. And low tax is clearly not an election winning platform, or at least: not yet. I wonder how the votes in the last council election would look if you could exclude all the renters who are not paying property tax?