The real reason we have so many social, health, and education deficits in our society is a result of tax cutting governments. It’s also why we have a very dangerous and accruing infrastructure deficit across our nation, estimated at $150 billion in 2019. That’s why I’ve long maintained that politicians who propose tax cuts ought to be required to state explicitly and transparently where they’ll cut programs and services in order to follow through on their promise.
Similarly, local governments that either promise or aim for zero-tax-increase budgets do a disservice to their citizens and ratepayers if they also do not state explicitly and transparently where they are going to cut to achieve this target or what long term program and infrastructure deficits they will be accumulating and leaving for other Councils to address in the future (with large tax increases).
Approving a zero-increase budget fails to take into account inflation alone, which needs to be estimated at about 2%. If inflationary costs are not going to be covered by a tax increase, then something must be cut. A zero-tax-increase budget also does not take into account the incremental responsibilities being placed on local governments to engage in and address emerging issues: like economic and social transition, First Nations relations and partnerships, climate change, housing, homelessness, public safety, and the list goes on.
Meeting the demands of the public for “more” -- like additional policing resources to address public safety issues or improvements to snow removal or recycling -- also come with costs, sometimes quite high ones. And, regulatory changes unilaterally imposed by federal and provincial governments also add additional costs to local governments; for example, at our landfill, or with respect to water quality.
That property tax increases are necessary in order to continue to deliver quality programs and services, maintain and enhance our City’s infrastructure, and address emerging issues is the philosophy Council applied to its 2020 budget, which was developed pre-COVID. Consequently, rather than taking a knee-jerk “tax relief” approach to that budget after COVID hit, Council chose to stay the course, passing the City’s budget as previously planned, resulting in a $70.84 tax increase to the average household. But, Council also asked staff to reduce spending where possible so we could hopefully cover any of the City’s COVID-related shortfalls and incremental costs (transit, airport, additional cleaning and PPE costs, etc.) within the 2020 budget and not carry any extra cost burdens into 2021.
I’m happy to report that our City staff, at all levels, did as Council asked and the 2020 budget year is closing out with a surplus. This surplus, combined with the Provincial Government’s COVID Safe Restart Grant, is allowing Quesnel City Council to approve a 2021 budget with only a nominal overall tax increase of 2.5%, as opposed to an originally proposed 4.6% increase. With this small tax increase ($33.43 to the average household or $14.57/$100,000 assessed value), we will be able to continue to deliver quality services and programs to our ratepayers and residents, maintain and improve the City’s core infrastructure, and continue to drive our economic transition strategy – all without deferring any future tax increases to future budgets or future Councils.
Annual property tax increases are necessary to have a resilient and sustainable community and to avoid burdening future Councils (and ratepayers) with program and infrastructure deficits. Zero-tax-increase budgets may sound like they are offering relief, but they generally just push the tax problem to future years.
To explore the City’s 2021 entire capital and operating budget in more detail visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment