By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: Feb. 22, 2014
If the planning department’s account ledger is any indication, then our town’s economy may be on the mend.
Development services at the district almost doubled its revenue this year, as people queued up to pay their business licence, rezoning, land application and special event fees.
In 2012, the development services brought in $391, 843. In 2013, that revenue had increased to more than $600,000.
At a recent budget meeting, the planning department staff told the council that revenue could have been more if it wasn’t for lower fees.
According to staff, the fees are about 50 per cent lower than other communities. The staff recommended increasing the fees.
“An increase in fees would reduce the taxation burden and should happen this year,” the staff said.
Thanks to dogs, bylaw enforcement also did a brisk business. By the end of 2012, the bylaw department was richer by $46,150 because of dog licences.
They had already crossed that target by the middle of this year. By Sept. 30 this year, the bylaw department had pulled in $52,000.
The bylaw department also issued more tickets this year, bringing in more revenue as a result. In 2012, for example, bylaw collected $2,205 in ticketing revenue. By Sept. 20 of last year, they had collected $5,485 in fines.
But if a few district departments increased revenues, there were more expenses with new departments.
Economic development, while not a legislated council duty, has been a council priority. In 2012, the economic development department spent $214,226, including salaries and other expenses.
Salary for EDO and his secretary accounted for $124,507, while a raft of other economic development programs brought the final tab to $214, 226.
Squamish Business Counts program cost the tax payers $23,356, while marketing, design and promotion of economic development programs cost another $15, 148.
In 2010, the district of Squamish also filled a communication position, which will cost the tax payers approx. $200,000.
The district also hired a new film and even coordinator, a position that is expected to cost the tax payers $85,648.
Transit services added a $1.3 million burden on the tax payer, but brought in only $190, 078.
Dave says
“The bylaw department also issued more tickets this year, bringing in more revenue as a result. In 2012, for example, bylaws collected $2,205 in ticketing revenue. By Sept. 20 of last year, they had collected $5485 in fines.”
Generally the information and initiatives in the above article are good but I have reservations about this quote: The motivation by the District here should not be to delight in collecting revenues from fines but rather to use the fines as deterrents for offences contravening SENSBLE bylaws… (And we have many stupid ones!).
In some Countries we see Council officials lurking in parking lots to creep up on transgressor for the sole purpose of collecting fines on a quota system. We could very easily drift into this pattern with the above kind of motivation. I do not want to see a bylaw officer cruising our streets checking on fence heights or wrong fence materials for the sole purpose of padding local municipal revenues. In one case in Europe, for example, a person was fined $100 dollars for littering because she fed some ducks bread 20 yards over the allowed foreshore of a park lake, The Council had to say she was littering because they could not think of any other way to make the fine stick. Another case was where a kid was fined for accidentally dropping an apple core even though it was scooped up by a nearby seagull 30 seconds minutes after. The very worst thing would be the introduction of the concept of , “Fixed Penalties”.
So let’s be careful here!
TJay says
Good points !
Jaspera says
As Dave says, the emphasis should be on “sensible” by-laws. Moreover an emphasis should be placed on “good, sound judgement” exercised by the by-law officer, plus politcness to the citizens who pay her (or his) salary. Both are sadly lacking in Squamish these days, and it would appear that Council members are doing nothing about either good judgement or politeness -possibly because they prefer that residents or tourists are fined willy-nilly, to raise revenue, rather than cultivating good relations and goodwill. One example – I had undertaken to take a load of good, usable computer equipment to the HotSpot, plus a load of books, for their programs. The only place to put my car was in the area immediately outside The Chieftain Hotel – all other spots were taken, and the load was too heavy to carry from one block away. It turned out that was a (poorly marked) “load zone”, and the by-law officer , not at all politely, said I was not allowed there because I was not a commercial vehicle and could not “stop” or unload there. (I was not casually shopping or doing errands – I was trying to help out the Centre.) She did not offer me another nearby option, or to help unload the heavy items for the HotSpot. She just rudely hassled me. Fortunately someone from the HotSpot Volunteer Centre came out and assisted me in getting the computers etc. into the Centre. The behaviour and attitude of the by-law officer was/is unacceptable – I am a senior in my 70s, I was trying to assist the volunteer centre, I was only unloading a load I had no way of getting to the Centre otherwise, I was treated rudely, and hassled. I have talked to others, and, unfortunately, others have had similar encounters, not least of which is when walking their dogs in quiet, dog-friendly neighbourhoods, in the rain, getting wet and soggy, with no one else about, and then being stopped by a by-law officer in her dry van demanding to see a license, etc. Has she not got better things to do than hassle soggy dog-walkers in an empty neighbourhood? Most residents want to be law-abiding citizens, and they are, but they don’t take kindly to hassling or harassment, rudeness or lack of politeness, and poor judgement, especially not when they are paying the salaries of those individuals. It’s wonderful to extol the increase in fines/revenues, but not when it results in a major resentment and dislike of those by-law officers, something that did not exist in past years, or until quite recently. Council members should look into this and ensure that putting an emphasis on raising revenues through fines is not coming at the expense of the goodwill of tax-paying residents and dollar-friendly visitors/tourists. It should give by-law officers training in community politeness and respect, as well as exercising sound judgement. And it should undertake a comprehensive review of its by-laws, many of which are out-dated, inappropriate, or, to quote Dave again, just “stupid”.
Rick says
So did the dog have a licence ?