1
User fees approval deferred
22 December 2010
Big topic on the agenda last Monday: the proposed 2011 schedule of user fees. These are the fees charged by the town for all sorts of services not covered by your taxes, from dog licences to photocopies. The list is 40 pages long. Council got it in the agenda, Friday night, and was expected to pass it, Monday night - and pass it without a full presentation explaining what the services are, or why the costs are that amount (and why some are increasing).
Given that six of the current council are either newcomers or have not been at the table for at least four years, I felt it appropriate to defer this discussion until the full budget discussions were brought forward, and we could get a proper presentation which explained both what the charges are for and how they impact the town and the taxpayers.
Keep in mind that the public also watches these meetings or learns about them from the media. It is our responsibility to ensure that information is presented clearly, fully and in depth for the public to comprehend our decisions.
User fees are taxes - accessory taxes. And as such, I believe the process of approving them should be open and as intensely scrutinized as the budget.
And I believe the public should be more fully engaged. While it might meet legal requirements, simply advertising on the back page of the newspaper to invite comments is insufficient. I searched the town's web site for the term "user fees" and could not find any notice about them nor the document itself. Communication from town hall on such important issues should be active, not passive. I believe the proposed list should be forwarded to every board, committee and affected association or group for comment. And council should be given the list weeks before we are expected to deal with it so we can discuss it with department heads.
In theory, user fees affect only those who demand the service. But they may also have a negative, collateral effect of discouraging potential users. Many of the fees are cost recovery for services such as property inspections, burning permits, new sewer and water main extensions. I don't think anyone will argue these costs be borne by general taxation. But others are questionable, at least to my perspective.
For example, we still have the $125 charge for investigating a council in-camera meeting - although the province's ombudsman does it at no cost. To me, that's a spiteful charge aimed at hiding council's activities behind an economic wall. A Freedom of Information Act request costs $5. Why not charge $5 for the in-camera investigation - have the clerk or her designate explain the circumstances and provide copies of the relevant legislation. If that doesn't satisfy the request, the individual can then take his or her complaint to the province, where it will be investigated at no cost. Making a resident pay $125 up front to learn what his or her municipal government is up to is not democracy in action: I see it as punishment for challenging council.
We charge $20 for a cat licence. I have argued against this for several years and managed to get it reduced to $15 for neutered or spayed cats, and to $10 if they are also micro-chipped. A cat adopted from the Humane Society is exempt from the fee for the first year. But it still discourages people from adopting cats from the Humane Society because it adds to the long-term costs of pet ownership. Besides, it's almost impossible to enforce. You gave to trap the animal outdoors, but how can we enforce it if the cats are indoor animals? Why are we charging seniors who struggle on a low, fixed income for a cat licence when all they want is some company from a pet? To me, it's more humane and effective to drop the charge in order to encourage people to adopt the hundreds of cats in the shelter. Let's just drop the whole cat bylaw.
Look at the costs the museum charges for use of the facilities and services like photographs (some lower than in 2010, I admit, but still excessive). In many areas it's much higher than our companion Simcoe County Museum charges for the same services. I've been told that they are among the highest charges in the province for the same services. The costs in some areas are high enough to discourage local authors and local historians from using our own museum's archives. I think we should try to encourage those people and make what we have in our archives more accessible.
The costs to use the Eddie Bush arena are the same as 2010. So are the fees for the use of the pool and most parks. I find it hard to believe that they aren't affected by cost of living increases - surely fuel and hydro have gone up. The fees for the port - our waterfront - use have increased. The costs for table and chair rentals has increased. Why not the pool and the arena? I'm not complaining - I'd just like to understand how some increases are proposed while other services remain untouched.
Parking permits for town lots increased from $42 a month to $60. That's a 42% increase - way beyond cost of living. Why? Annual rates didn't change, why monthly?
Why are still demanding $3,100 in-lieu costs for parking spaces downtown when everyone knows we cannot realistically create the spaces our bylaws demand without tearing down buildings. And since most buildings have little or no parking space to start with (many are built to or close to the lot lines), the in-lieu parking charge simply adds costs to downtown growth.
I think these parking costs discourage downtown development and redevelopment. For example, if a restaurant wants to open in a building previously used for another purpose, it has to pay for not having enough parking. Let's say it needs 30 spaces but there are none on the property. The owner has to pay $93,000 to the town for that lack, but doesn't get any benefit from the expense - no parking spaces are created for customers from that money and his or her customers will still get tickets if they don't feed the meters. All that money the owner has to shell out and nothing in return. Think that encourages downtown growth?
Why not simply dispense with in-lieu parking charges downtown in order to encourage development downtown?
We charge downtown merchants to display their goods outside, and charge downtown restaurants to erect a patio. Businesses outside downtown have the competitive advantage of being able to display materials or have patios without these licence fees. Downtown merchants already pay steep BIA fees - why are we charging them more? We charge downtown merchants $60 a year for a simple A-frame sign, plus $40 if we remove it AND $2 a day to "store" it for them. Who says we're anti-business? Why not a one-time fee for inspection, rather than an annual fee?
Councillor Edwards asked why the Contact Centre fees weren't listed in the report - an assumption that the CC, once closed, is not being resurrected. That is very likely, in this parsimonious economic climate. However, that discussion has not been held at the tale, and no formal decision made, so any such assumption is premature. Shouldn't we have the discussion about its fate first, before the fees are presented?
Do we charge too much for some things? Not enough? Are some fees - like arena ice time - being subsidized by others? What do user fees represent in terms of the overall budget? Should fees rise more than the cost of living, and if so, why? That's the sort of questions we need to ask in public. It's simply not appropriate to present the fees and approve them without discussion. Fortunately, the rest of council agreed, and the debate was postponed until 2011.
My biggest concerns are that the new council gets a full and proper presentation to explain the rationale behind user fees (and why or if they change) and that the public gets the fullest opportunity to understand and comment on those fees that affect them.
Given that six of the current council are either newcomers or have not been at the table for at least four years, I felt it appropriate to defer this discussion until the full budget discussions were brought forward, and we could get a proper presentation which explained both what the charges are for and how they impact the town and the taxpayers.
Keep in mind that the public also watches these meetings or learns about them from the media. It is our responsibility to ensure that information is presented clearly, fully and in depth for the public to comprehend our decisions.
User fees are taxes - accessory taxes. And as such, I believe the process of approving them should be open and as intensely scrutinized as the budget.
And I believe the public should be more fully engaged. While it might meet legal requirements, simply advertising on the back page of the newspaper to invite comments is insufficient. I searched the town's web site for the term "user fees" and could not find any notice about them nor the document itself. Communication from town hall on such important issues should be active, not passive. I believe the proposed list should be forwarded to every board, committee and affected association or group for comment. And council should be given the list weeks before we are expected to deal with it so we can discuss it with department heads.
In theory, user fees affect only those who demand the service. But they may also have a negative, collateral effect of discouraging potential users. Many of the fees are cost recovery for services such as property inspections, burning permits, new sewer and water main extensions. I don't think anyone will argue these costs be borne by general taxation. But others are questionable, at least to my perspective.
For example, we still have the $125 charge for investigating a council in-camera meeting - although the province's ombudsman does it at no cost. To me, that's a spiteful charge aimed at hiding council's activities behind an economic wall. A Freedom of Information Act request costs $5. Why not charge $5 for the in-camera investigation - have the clerk or her designate explain the circumstances and provide copies of the relevant legislation. If that doesn't satisfy the request, the individual can then take his or her complaint to the province, where it will be investigated at no cost. Making a resident pay $125 up front to learn what his or her municipal government is up to is not democracy in action: I see it as punishment for challenging council.
We charge $20 for a cat licence. I have argued against this for several years and managed to get it reduced to $15 for neutered or spayed cats, and to $10 if they are also micro-chipped. A cat adopted from the Humane Society is exempt from the fee for the first year. But it still discourages people from adopting cats from the Humane Society because it adds to the long-term costs of pet ownership. Besides, it's almost impossible to enforce. You gave to trap the animal outdoors, but how can we enforce it if the cats are indoor animals? Why are we charging seniors who struggle on a low, fixed income for a cat licence when all they want is some company from a pet? To me, it's more humane and effective to drop the charge in order to encourage people to adopt the hundreds of cats in the shelter. Let's just drop the whole cat bylaw.
Look at the costs the museum charges for use of the facilities and services like photographs (some lower than in 2010, I admit, but still excessive). In many areas it's much higher than our companion Simcoe County Museum charges for the same services. I've been told that they are among the highest charges in the province for the same services. The costs in some areas are high enough to discourage local authors and local historians from using our own museum's archives. I think we should try to encourage those people and make what we have in our archives more accessible.
The costs to use the Eddie Bush arena are the same as 2010. So are the fees for the use of the pool and most parks. I find it hard to believe that they aren't affected by cost of living increases - surely fuel and hydro have gone up. The fees for the port - our waterfront - use have increased. The costs for table and chair rentals has increased. Why not the pool and the arena? I'm not complaining - I'd just like to understand how some increases are proposed while other services remain untouched.
Parking permits for town lots increased from $42 a month to $60. That's a 42% increase - way beyond cost of living. Why? Annual rates didn't change, why monthly?
Why are still demanding $3,100 in-lieu costs for parking spaces downtown when everyone knows we cannot realistically create the spaces our bylaws demand without tearing down buildings. And since most buildings have little or no parking space to start with (many are built to or close to the lot lines), the in-lieu parking charge simply adds costs to downtown growth.
I think these parking costs discourage downtown development and redevelopment. For example, if a restaurant wants to open in a building previously used for another purpose, it has to pay for not having enough parking. Let's say it needs 30 spaces but there are none on the property. The owner has to pay $93,000 to the town for that lack, but doesn't get any benefit from the expense - no parking spaces are created for customers from that money and his or her customers will still get tickets if they don't feed the meters. All that money the owner has to shell out and nothing in return. Think that encourages downtown growth?
Why not simply dispense with in-lieu parking charges downtown in order to encourage development downtown?
We charge downtown merchants to display their goods outside, and charge downtown restaurants to erect a patio. Businesses outside downtown have the competitive advantage of being able to display materials or have patios without these licence fees. Downtown merchants already pay steep BIA fees - why are we charging them more? We charge downtown merchants $60 a year for a simple A-frame sign, plus $40 if we remove it AND $2 a day to "store" it for them. Who says we're anti-business? Why not a one-time fee for inspection, rather than an annual fee?
Councillor Edwards asked why the Contact Centre fees weren't listed in the report - an assumption that the CC, once closed, is not being resurrected. That is very likely, in this parsimonious economic climate. However, that discussion has not been held at the tale, and no formal decision made, so any such assumption is premature. Shouldn't we have the discussion about its fate first, before the fees are presented?
Do we charge too much for some things? Not enough? Are some fees - like arena ice time - being subsidized by others? What do user fees represent in terms of the overall budget? Should fees rise more than the cost of living, and if so, why? That's the sort of questions we need to ask in public. It's simply not appropriate to present the fees and approve them without discussion. Fortunately, the rest of council agreed, and the debate was postponed until 2011.
My biggest concerns are that the new council gets a full and proper presentation to explain the rationale behind user fees (and why or if they change) and that the public gets the fullest opportunity to understand and comment on those fees that affect them.
