Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Photo submitted

HOW THE CITY IS FUNDED – This table shows the city's revenue streams for the budget unveiled Monday. Chart courtesy CITY OF WHITEHORSE

‘This will not be a painless exercise'

Whitehorse property owners will pay nearly four per cent more in property taxes if city council adopts the proposed operating budget.

By Stephanie Waddell on February 26, 2013

Whitehorse property owners will pay nearly four per cent more in property taxes if city council adopts the proposed operating budget.

The $65-million budget was brought forward at Monday evening's city council meeting, with Mayor Dan Curtis presenting his first operating budget address.

The proposed 3.83 per cent tax hike means the average home owner in the city will pay another $65 in property taxes this year.

The average non-residential land owner will pay another $297.

As Curtis noted in his speech, while the city's population is expanding, that puts certain pressures on the community.

"New developments mean an increase to the city's tax base, but they also require municipal services and infrastructure in the form of roads, inspections, water and sewer, etc.,” he said.

"I believe this council has delivered an operations budget which responds to the city's growth and manages the challenges that accompany development of this nature.”

He later went on to "make the case” for the tax hike, citing inflation, salary pressures and the city's recent reorganizations.

The two per cent inflation rate the city has seen in the past year is a full 1.1 per cent higher than the national rate.

Along with the inflation the city has seen, there's the salaries the city pays its workers, with that making up about half the operating budget.

"We have negotiated collective agreements with our employees that allow us to remain competitive in terms of making the city an employer of choice in what is also a competitive labour market,” Curtis said.

"To attract employees who are capable and dedicated, we need to offer competitive salary and benefit packages.”

There's also the city's reorganization, which Curtis described as a "positive step forward as it ensures that we are properly aligned to meet expanding needs and greater responsibilities.”

It does, however, require financial support, he said.

"I think it is important to note that our tax rate, when compared to other cities in Canada, is competitive,” he said.

"Property tax for an average home in Whitehorse remains below the rates in cities such as St. John's, Medicine Hat, Toronto, Victoria, Halifax and Lethbridge (Alta.), to name but a few.”

The city's provisional budget proposes further hikes of 4.25 per cent in 2014 and 3.52 per cent in 2015 for a total of 11.6 per cent in the next three years. Taxes have jumped 27.5 per cent since 2007.

The city has added services like new evening bus service through the week under the proposed budget.

As well, a number of other measures were taken to reduce and eliminate expenses, which, Curtis argued, allowed the city to avoid an additional two per cent hike.

"This will not be a painless exercise,” the mayor emphasized.

"Certain positions will be eliminated, and employees may be transferred to jobs with a higher priority. Fortunately, services, for the most part, will not be affected by this reduction and, of course, the safety and welfare of our citizens our paramount.”

At a media briefing Monday afternoon, Rob Fendrick, the city's director of corporate services, said there are certain positions proposed that will not be filled.

There will be no job losses though, it was stressed.

Money will also be saved by keeping the Canada Games Centre closed on six statutory holidays rather than the two – Christmas Day and New Year's Day – on which it's closed now.

The goal, officials said, was to keep the tax increase under four per cent.

Along with the tax boost, residents will also notice a jump in waste collection rates and on recreational activities.

Collection rates are set to rise by $1 a month from $8 to $9 while user fees for recreational facilities will see its annual 1.5 per cent increase done to account for inflation.

Water and sewer rates will remain at 2011 levels.

"To summarize, council is seeking to establish an operations budget which will manage taxpayer contributions in a responsible manner, consisting of modest tax increases; combined with targeted strategic increases in services, most important of which is transit; spending reductions; with a minimal reduction in services,” Curtis said in closing his speech.

After the meeting, the mayor said it's a proposed budget driven by council, not administration.

"We've listened to citizens,” he said, reflecting on the challenge of producing a budget that gave residents what they wanted while keeping costs down.

"The City of Whitehorse is a very tight ship.”

With first reading of the budget having been passed last night, a public input session will now be held at council's March 11 meeting, with a report on that coming forward on March 18.

Second and third readings are then expected to come forward on March 25.

See related coverage below.

Comments (17)

Up 0 Down 0

Frank Silva on Mar 1, 2013 at 10:57 am

Well... duh, Sally!! That's exactly my point! My property taxes only cover the service of "once-in-a-while" snow removal.

The point is the amount of property taxes City residents pay are not equal to the quality of services we receive yet our taxes keep getting increased year after year. But, I guess you're too cute to understand that...

Up 0 Down 0

Jackie Ward on Feb 28, 2013 at 10:33 pm

Sally:

You must work for the city. Nothing you said makes any sense. You are trying to defend something that deserves no defending. Hence why you probably work for the city.

Lets pick this apart one by one.

#1 More service? What planet do you live on? Services continue to be cut year after year. So your argument is moot.

#2 Paying for a service that occurs once a year is unacceptable. Especially when the amount keeps going up every year. In that case the occurrence of snow removal should be going up according to your logic. Right?

#3 "More people doesn't translate directly into increase tax revenue!" Lol, are you just making this up as you go along?

#4 The city takes people to court for dare questioning its practices. They themselves have destroyed the word democracy with their sad and pathetic actions against the citizens it's suppose to serve.

#5 Strawman argument that brings nothing credible to the discussion.

#6 THE CITY DOES NOT CLEAR THE STREETS. Bus routes don't even get done. So Sally, what is going on? Once a year is beyond pathetic. What are they doing Sally? Why can't they hire a private company to help out. There has been an obvious problem for years and its getting worse.

#7 "Cut the travel expenses of Mayor and Council and adjust the salaries of City employees to those of the average joe!!! " 'Not allowed under the municipal act as far as I know!"

Nope, them wasting money going to useless meetings are out of the question. How dare we question their actions. Shame, shame, shame.

#8 " but I don't want to be in city hall when people start getting passed during rush hour because buses are at capacity. "

?????????? Seriously Sally. We thank you for the laughs today.

I mean seriously, lmao.

You couldn't make this stuff up folks. Everyone hop aboard the COW carnival. Free shovels for the kids. How dare you forget that your sidewalks have to be cleared within 24 hours. We don't fulfill our responsibility's by ensuring your safety by clearing roads in a timely fashion, but you will clear your sidewalk post hast.

Where am I?

Up 0 Down 0

Adele Sandrock on Feb 28, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Sally - then it's time for a change. If they can make amendments to nearly every application to subdivide a property (why did Aishihik go even in first reading?), they should be able to change that in a breeze. But who want's to fight the wealthy?

- not even Steely Dan will do that.

Up 0 Down 0

north_of_60 on Feb 28, 2013 at 8:23 am

Sally - if you read carefully you would realize I was clearly speaking of country residential property owners in Whitehorse who pay a disproportionate amount of taxes for services they don't use as much as townies do.

Yes, the people in the subdivisions outside the city limits get a free ride at city taxpayers expense. However that's not a city tax issue.

Up 0 Down 0

CJ on Feb 28, 2013 at 8:12 am

Well, Sally, with regard to "more people not translating directly into more tax revenue" that is not what I was saying. The city does insist that densification is more economical and keeps costs low, because, well, there's more people per household/street/neighborhood -- which is not yet in evidence and which your logic contradicts, by the way.

Presumably with more development the additional people are going to contribute to the costs. Instead, what seems to be happening is the core population is paying for at least one expanded serviced area that's serviced but not populated. The mayor tied a percentage of the tax increase to something like $250,000 (I forget the exact number) in services, which neatly ties in with Whistle Bend. I don't really see why people shouldn't comment on the quality of the services they're receiving.

As for the city not having the authority under the M.A. to provide incentives and disincentives to delinquent property owners, indeed it does. Which the city exercised by giving developers a tax break or bonus of some kind last year.

Speaking for myself, I have never asked for more services and frankly, there's not many I have access to. I never use Mount Sima, for example. I have no opinion about the subsidy, but it's out there, isn't it.

I have found, like others, that the tax increases they claim amount to a few dollars a year adds up to more substantial amounts.

Spending your money at local businesses, regardless of where you're from, is beneficial to the economy. It provides a reason for the businesses to be there, paying taxes.

I reserve the right to speak critically about government policies that impact myself and others.

Up 0 Down 0

Sally on Feb 27, 2013 at 10:09 am

You guys are so cute. I hope you realize this town is completely fickle when it comes to taxes.

In essence, people want more service and lower taxes. They don't want to pay higher user fees. They want to keep the services they like but not the ones they don't. They want large country lots, but want the tax rate of compact urban lots. They want the services and recreational opportunities of a large city and the tax rate of a small village.

Frank Silva: Out of those services mentioned, you only pay for snow removal! Those other services are levied on utility bills that country residential doesn't receive.

CJ: More people doesn't translate directly into increase tax revenue! Your property tax doesn't increase if your household goes from two to four but your utilization of city services does.

SCHolmes: Tell council what those ignored ptions are or run for council if you have good ideas!

north_of_60: Please note the second largest community in the Yukon is the area around Whitehorse just outside city limits! Its population is larger than Dawson and Watson and it contributes nothing to pay for the services they use on a daily basis. Spending money at Whitehorse business does not create property tax.

New Home Owner: The city goes over the snow removal bylaw every year including street priority! I suggest attending those meeting and suggesting alternatives.

Adele Sandrock: Not allowed under the municipal act as far as I know!

Brice Carruthers: The alternative is not have bike lanes, probably a worse situation than we have. Smaller transit buses makes sense but I don't want to be in city hall when people start getting passed during rush hour because buses are at capacity.

Up 0 Down 0

Taxation Sodomy on Feb 27, 2013 at 9:41 am

For but a wee wee start CoW and our new Mayor, cut 100% of the special interest group HAND OUTS! The city's role is NOT I repeat NOT wealth distribution. If the coffers can dole it out, then CLEARLY we are being over taxed and the political wind-bags are acting as the tooth fairy...awarding cash to those whom feel entitled to it?

Need stuff for your "club"? Do a bake sale, bottle drive what have you. Folks can contribute to each group as they are free to do with their "extra" cash Vs. the comrades at city hall taxing US to spend on whomever?

If that fails? Then I guess whatever your "elite club" and whatever their goal/agenda is...clearly does not have community support.

I think the time has come for me to attend some meetings...ya think the "peel" crew was an ass pain? Considering my tenacity & history with said wind bags...should be a blast!

Up 0 Down 0

Cindy Loverin on Feb 27, 2013 at 8:20 am

I wouldn't mind paying more property taxes if we actually got our garbage picked up more than twice a month in the summertime. Instead it smells up the yard and attracts bear, and wouldn't it be wonderful if the street infront of our properties that we pay so much taxes for actually got plowed in the winter.

I bet those bigger cities they are comparing us to actually recieve some services.

Up 0 Down 0

Brice Carruthers on Feb 27, 2013 at 8:15 am

The Municipal Government has been talking up sustainability for years, but cannot see the forest for the trees. Building wider roads for bike lanes seems like a noble pursuit; however, capital costs for new roads end up increasing by 50%, and snow removal costs increase for these wider roads. Yet, I'll bet you that far less than 10% of citizens use bicycles as a primary mode of transport. Spending money on transit also seems nice, but then you see over-sized buses with one or two passengers on them. It is decisions like these that are unsustainable. The City is suffering a death by a thousand cuts, and it needs to stop!

Up 0 Down 0

Adele Sandrock on Feb 27, 2013 at 6:36 am

How about charging those empty lot property owners with a hefty tax increase would finally promote a development. Cut the travel expenses of Mayor and Council and adjust the salaries of City employees to those of the average joe!!!

Up 0 Down 0

Arn Anderson on Feb 27, 2013 at 6:03 am

I love it, I hope they make more excuses to raise the taxes and the fees more. Mayor and council, and how they perform is entertainment for me. They also should give themselves another pay raise, they earned it.

Up 0 Down 0

New Home Owner on Feb 27, 2013 at 6:00 am

Wow, looks like I have lots to look forward to now that I own property in Whitehorse...more taxes! They say that this is what the citizens want but to be honest I never really heard anyone asking for opinions.

The services being offered aren't available to those in country residential so I find it unjust that they are going to see an increase in their property taxes for services that do not apply to them.

On another note, maybe if snow removal occurred at regular intervals (instead of rush hour or outside my bedroom window at 11:00 pm) and if it was finished from the start rather than leaving large piles to clean up later, the city could possibly save costs there. Just a thought.

Up 0 Down 0

north_of_60 on Feb 26, 2013 at 10:31 am

Property tax increases based on percent are unfair. Country residential home owners pay higher taxes already so their tax increase is more like $80 to $100 not $65. They also use fewer tax supported municipal services, and get reduced benefits like street cleaning and repair.

To be fair, the $65 average increase should be a $65 increase for every residential property owner, not a percent increase.

Up 0 Down 0

SCHolmes on Feb 26, 2013 at 9:04 am

So here we are again. property owners on the hook for another 4% increase and only if you average the residential tax base out do you get an increase of $65. In real terms, for most, this is an increase of over $100 and more for garbage, sewer etc. The reality is that Whitehorse has one of the highest tax rates when it is considered the city does not clear all roads in winter, as other cities do, do not provide policing services,do not have the same storm infrastructure to deal with and road repairs are minimal. So, This is not easy to swallow, Whitehorse is not in line with other cities and the services taxpayers do receive are second rate at best. Other solutions exist but are ignored.

Up 0 Down 0

CJ on Feb 26, 2013 at 9:01 am

Some of this doesn't make sense to me. The population is growing so we all have to pay more? I thought having more people spreads around the expense. It sounds more like the population hasn't caught up to development, so fewer people are paying for more stuff. Which, you know, would be nice to have on the table when these grand plans, like Whistle Bend, are promoted with such gusto.

Whistle Bend is what makes a mockery out of the logic. Providing services to an uninhabited subdivision -- yeah, that makes sense. That's real sustainable.

Up 0 Down 0

Frank Silva on Feb 26, 2013 at 8:26 am

You know... it would be really nice to have a Mayor and City Council that could come up with some revenue generating ideas OTHER THAN RAISING OUR FREAKIN' TAXES EVERY YEAR! I live in a country residential area within city limits where I get NO garbage pickup, NO water and sewer, barely any snow removal. What am I paying for?????

Up 0 Down 0

Jackie Ward on Feb 26, 2013 at 8:08 am

It's fun watching these clowns use the same argument year after year. Enjoy more money out of your pockets Whitehorse. I knew Dan was too good to be true. Just another Buckway.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.