|
|
|
Huron-Kinloss council agrees to 8.7 tax increase Council informally decided on this year’s 8.7 per-cent increase at a special meeting held in Ripley on Tuesday, April 10, when they also informally decided to “agreed in principal” to a seven per cent increase each year, for the following three years. Those who attended the meeting were not impressed. If council sticks with its 8.7, 7, 7 and 7 per cent increases over the next four years, Huron-Kinloss taxes will go up by 29.7 per cent, not counting what most expect will be a large increase in MPAC assessments in 2008. Many believe that since the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) froze this year’s assessments, ratepayers will be hard hit in 2008, especially along the lakeshore. On top of that, those who operate septic systems in the township will be pay another $55-per-year. The township was looking at a 10 per cent hike, however a truck, estimated to be over $160,000, was cut from the public works budget, with some money being put into reserves for a future purchase. Treasurer Jodi MacArthur made a brief presentation to council, explaining some of the budget details and compared it to other municipalities. She had very little in the way of good news other than there was a $180,000 police credit, money that the township received back from policing costs and a recent announcement that insurance costs for the township came down significantly (about $10,000). Many expected that money would help avoid a large tax hike. It was not to be. Mayor Mitch Twolan was not at the meeting, but instructed Deputy Mayor Wilf Gamble to “go around the table” and get comments from each councillor on where they suggest savings could be found and to hear their comments. Council discussed ways to cut the increase, but had little luck in doing so. Councillor Anne Eadie argued against a large hike, suggested five, to seven per cent maximum, believing that there were savings all around, if looked for hard enough. Staff, along with three councillors and the deputy mayor, did not agree. Eadie said she did some calculating at home, “At the present rate of seven per cent, we’re doubling taxes every ten years.” “We need to cut. I think we promised too much. If we want to keep the capital the same, (roads, bridges, etc), we have to cut some things such as the ROMA conference. Along with the expense of council members going to conferences, Eadie suggested what many in Point Clark have long been saying, “Maybe we can do without the curbs and gutters and stop the fancy roads. People don’t want it looking like a subdivision in Point Clark, (as seen in big cities). We could also look at cutting back on some of the equipment purchases, or maybe cut a few sites from the water testing program.” Eadie said council is forgetting how much things add up. “We have to get tough. On the farm, we can’t just go out and buy a new combine whenever we feel we want one, we have to try to make it last. Maybe it’s time we slow down.” Eadie suggested cutting a few water quality testing locations, but was told that the program does not cost all that much and that cutting only a few locations would not add up to much. Administrator Mary Rose Walden said that only about $22,000 of the water quality monitoring costs come from taxpayers, the rest comes from the lakeshore. Some of the testing was mandated by the province in an agreement to continue development along the lakeshore on septic systems. Councillor Jim Hanna said that he doesn’t like tax hikes any more than the next guy, but that “we won’t be thanked by the next council by handing over crumbling roads.” As for the water monitoring, he said, “Over 70 per cent of our taxes comes from the lakeshore (West of Highway 21). They are the ones paying the bills. They want water testing, we heard what they want and we should give it to them," he said. "Even if we cut it all, we wouldn’t be saving one per cent.” He also commented that because of the township’s water program, Huron-Kinloss has received $75,000 in grant money. “I don’t want to tell the lakeshore residents we are cutting water testing,” said Hanna. Hanna pushed for the ten per cent increase, however he said, “I respect everyone at this table too much to beat anyone up about it. I’m willing to vote 8.7, but I’m asking you to stay the course at seven per cent over the next three years. I still say 8.7 is inadequate.” Eadie said, “There comes a time when we have to say no. If our taxpayers are being squeezed that much, (at 10 per cent or 8.7) then we have to cut. Council discussed the purchase of a new truck for public works. The cost was between $160,000 and $180,000. In the end, the truck was cut, but money would be put into a reserve for the future purchase. Public works had hoped to get a new one this year and another one next year. Public works Superintendent Hugh Nichol was concerned that council would complain if there were high costs regarding upkeep of the trucks the township has now, which has happened in the past. Council indicated that repair costs are one of the things associated with making the most out of equipment. “As long as I don’t hear complaints about maintenance, I can live with it,” he said. Councillor Don Murray said if he needed a new truck but couldn’t afford it, he’d have to spend money on repairs and make the truck he already has last longer too. Councillor Lillian Abbott suggested the $60,000 suggested lated to pave the Ripley Arena parking lot could best be used elsewhere. “Can we look at using some of the grant money to pave the parking lot,” she asked. Abbott said that the money saved could pave the tennis courts on Attawandaron Road and in Huronville. Councillors Jim Hanna and Don Murray wondered the same, suggesting that rather than buying new boards and glass, the old ones could be re-used. (The suggestion was made at previous meetings by several councillors, but some council and staff wanted to spend the extra and have everything new.) The two said the savings could pave the parking lot. Although the idea could have saved money, they were told that everything had been gutted already and boards and glass had been taken out. Murray commented that there was $73,000 in reserves for parks and that $140,000 was still needed for the $233,000 Lewis Park project. “You still want another $30,000 of tax money,” he asked Mary Rose Walden. Walden said no, that they have the money needed for that project, just not the money for re-paving the tennis courts on Attawandaron Road and in Huronville. Councillor Jeff Elliott asked why there was talk of cuts from roads, water testing and equipment, but no one talked about Parks and Recreation, suggesting there were savings to be found there. “There’s got to be cuts on recreation,” he said. He got little response and the discussion ended quickly. Elliott said he was for keeping the increase at 10 per cent. He reasoned that the township could get away with the large increase because education taxes did not go up this year and the county increase was only five percent. “If we put ours up 10 per cent, the over all increase for ratepayers will only be five per cent.” Eadie did not like the idea of using the fact that education taxes did not rise as an excuse for raising the township’s taxes to such an extreme. “People’s wages did not go up by that much.” Deputy Mayor Wilf Gamble said, “When we started weeks ago, I said 8.7 was the limit, now it ended up at 10. I don’t want to back paddle now. We have to tell the conservation authorities we’re done, (with the double digit budget increases). $180,000 is too much. I’m with Jeff (Elliott) I think we should stick with 10 per cent, but I can live with 8.7.” Gamble then asked if there was anyone in the audience that had anything to say and asked if it was OK for them to state an opinion. Administrator Mary Rose Walden said, “No, they can’t. No one contacted us and wanted to come in as a delegation,” so those who attended were not allowed to provide input. One frustrated man however, cared not what was said and spoke out anyway. “Ten per cent isn’t what my pension went up. My pension wasn't even close to that.” Eadie agreed and said it’s time to demand from the upper tiers of government that funding for conservation authorities come from income tax, rather than property taxes. “If we go the way we are, in seven years the taxes will double, that’s not counting MPAC increases.” Hanna agreed saying, “Unfortunately, MPAC hits the lakeshore the hardest.” “We need clear direction on the truck,” said Walden. Treasurer Jodi MacArthur said, “If the truck were to die, we couldn’t borrow to replace it without paying interest.” “On the farm, we can’t buy a new combine whenever we want either. We make due,” said Eadie. Murray said that he saw four-year-old trucks being sold by Huron County for a good price. “Could we not look at something like that when the time comes?” There was then talk on employee wages, with hopes that some savings could be found there. Murray asked Walden what kind of wages township employees are making and how they are calculated. “I know that our road crews are making more money per hour than the county crews.” Hanna said it should be reviewed. “I was under the understanding that our employees get three, to four per cent a year.” Walden said that they do. No specifics were mentioned, but Walden said, “We negotiate in the fall.” There was no progress being made as to fiding savings, so Gamble said council should take a straw vote on either 8, or 8.7 per cent. “I want less,” said Eadie. Murray too, thought more savings could be found. I want five to seven at the most,” said Eadie. “Wilf, you’re still working, but there’s some on fixed income.” “I live at the lake and I know what it’s going to do to me, it’s going to kill me, said Gamble.” In the end, the two were on their own. Council voted on either 8 per cent, or 8.7. Councillors Murray and Eadie voted for the 8 per cent increase and Hanna, Elliot, Abbott and Gamble voted for 8.7. Once the vote was over and the decision had been made, the ratepayers in attendance were allowed to speak. Brian Watt, president of the Boiler Beach Homeowners Association summed up what others were feeling. “Last year they (taxes) were up four per cent. It’s funny that they were only four per cent on an election year. Now that you have been voted in, this year it’s 8.7. I don’t think it should go up that much,” adding that it’s time council should be taking tough action. “Last year, you also voted yourselves a wage increase, I think you should rescind it.” Another ratepayer said, "We don't all work for Bruce Power." In the end, taxes for the Huron-Kinloss portion of your tax bill went from $3.73 for every $1,000 your house is worth, to $4.06. That means residents with a home worth $200,000 who paid $746 in 2006 for the Huron-Kinloss portion of the tax bill, will now pay $812 for the same services, an additional $66. Those on septics, can add a charge of $55-per-year, permanently, (along with their regular septic maintenance costs,) to pay for the septic re-inspection program. All said and done, with the 8.7 per cent Huron-Kinloss increase and the 5 per cent increase at the county level, those who own a $200,000 home in the township who paid $2128 in municipal taxes last year will now pay $2234, an additional $106 over all. Additional cost are not included. In 2006, homes on municipal paid an additional $194. Ripley and Lucknow residents paid around $170 for sewers that year and those in Huronville, Lucknow, Kinlough, Whitechurch and Ripley paid anywhere from $16-$35 for streetlights. It is unknown at the time if these costs have risen. It is also unknown if bag tag prices are to be hiked. Some quick math: What will it cost if the 8.7, 7, 7 and 7 per cent goes through? If staff recommendations for the 8.7 increase and seven percent additional increases for the next three years goes through, here’s how the Huron-Kinloss portion of your tax bill may look on a home worth $200,000. NOTE: This is for the Huron-Kinloss budget only and does not include county and education taxes, nor does it include any user fees, or other costs listed above. In 2006, residential homes paid $3.73 for each $1,000 their home was worth. A home worth $200,000 paid about $746 for the Huron-Kinloss portion of their tax bill. In 2007, if an additional 8.7 per cent is added, it brings it up by 32-cents for each $1,000 your home is worth, coming to $4.06-per-$1,000. ($812 on a $200,000 home) In 2008, if an additional 7 per cent is added, it comes to an additional 28-cents for each $1,000 your home is worth, bringing it up to $4.34-per-$1,000. ($868 on a $200,000 home) In 2010, if an additional 7 per cent is added, it comes to an additional 32-cents for each $1,000 your home is worth, bringing it up to $4.96-per-$1,000. ($992 on a $200,000 home) Summing it up: If a ratepayer owned a $200,000 home in 2006, he/she paid about $746 for the Huron-Kinloss portion of the tax bill. If council “agrees in principle” to the staff recommendations, that same homeowner could pay $992 in 2010 on the same house. That is an additional $246 in four years. That does not include any MPAC increases, which many expect to be large in 2008 or addition fees such as water, streetlights, septic re-inspection fees, sewers, etc. |
|