|
|
Area Rating
Lets keep this civil.
|
Kinda funny that Brad Clark wants to end area rating yet he's the one that brought in this whole area rating idea when he was in the Mike Harris cabinet. He was Mike Harris front hand man for Hamilton's amalgamation.
|
Quote:
|
of course we're the only one left doing it.
Hamilton's urban residents have been getting screwed for decades. Why stop now? |
Council makes U-turn on tax shift debate
City to overhaul system by 2011 August 08, 2008 Nicole Macintyre The Hamilton Spectator In an abrupt turnaround, city council has agreed to revamp Hamilton's taxes before the next election. Suburban and urban councillors voted unanimously yesterday to tackle the divisive issue together and implement a new system by 2011. "I think it's a turning point," said Councillor Tom Jackson, noting both sides have moved their position to "work together as a team." The decision was a sharp shift from the previous day when council, meeting in committee, voted 8-7 to delay any decision about the city's tax division until after the 2010 election. Councillors huddled privately to find the compromise on a timeline after a change in council attendance threatened to reverse the original vote and possibly force a decision this fall. "Let's move forward. Let's work together," Councillor Scott Duvall urged his colleagues as he brought forward the revised plan. "We all recognize we have a serious problem." Historically, suburban councillors have been reluctant to re-examine area-rating, a tax system put in place after amalgamation to ease the tax burden on the communities that merged with the city. The suburbs pay less for receiving less of such services as culture and recreation, transit and fire. Staff recently found faults in the system and recommended it be reviewed this fall. Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who had supported the original delay, said the compromise is significant because it signals no one is deluded about the status quo continuing. "At some point, adjustments have to be made." Glanbrook Councillor David Mitchell agrees the current system needs improvement, but said he also sees potential to expand the services included in area-rating. "It's about improving a practical management tool," he said. "Area-rating will never be gone. It's here to stay." It remains to be seen in coming months if council will be able to stay united when it comes to deciding what model of taxation the city should adopt going forward. The staff analysis noted the current tax divisions are based on old geographic boundaries even though services are not. In some cases, residents on opposite sides of the street are paying different amounts for the same services. Staff want to put forward alternatives, such as eliminating area-rating completely or creating a new division between urban and rural residents. Any change will mean a tax shift for residents. Under the compromise, staff will bring back a report this fall on the options. It will then be circulated in the community for input before coming back to council for a final decision before the next election. The new system, which could be phased in, will start Jan. 1, 2011. |
Council votes not to duck tax decision
August 08, 2008 Andrew Dreschel The Hamilton Spectator Credit Scott Duvall for getting Hamilton councillors to accept a deadline for tackling a controversial tax policy, rather than dodging it until after the next election as originally planned. Before the Ward 7 councillor began bending his colleagues ears on the matter, councillors had voted 8-7 to maintain the status quo and basically spend the next two years - the balance of this term of council - studying the unfair and illogical system of area rating, but not taking any concrete steps to fix the problem. After Duvall got the ball rolling, council yesterday agreed to a compromise. Under the new plan, the status quo will still remain for two years, but council is unanimously committed to implementing a new policy that will kick in when the next council takes over in January 2011. They may not be taking the minotaur by the horns, but at least the councillors are not melting into the woodwork like timid mice. Clearly, area rating is a very delicate subject, especially in the suburbs. The system has been used since amalgamation to soften suburban residential tax rates, by permitting different areas to pay different amounts depending on the recreation, fire, and transit services they receive. The problem is, the system is artificially based on ward boundaries rather than, say, the difference between rural and urban service standards. That means in some instances, homeowners in old Hamilton are paying more taxes than homeowners in the suburbs, for houses of equal value with similar access to services. Thanks to the compromise, council now has two years to come up with, hopefully, a more equitable tax differential model. Duvall readily admits his ability to propose an action timeline was strengthened when Councillor Brian McHattie returned from vacation specifically to vote on the issue. McHattie, who favours changing the policy, would have tipped yesterday's ratification vote the other way. Obviously, those who originally supported putting off a decision, realized if they didn't compromise they could end up losing this time out, particularly since their side was weakened by Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson's absence yesterday. Duvall, who hated the thought of shirking responsibility, is delighted with the compromise. "I didn't want to put this on another council," Duvall said in an interview. "I know it's our responsibility and we've got to deal with it." Exactly. As Councillor Terry Whitehead suggested that the reason the province changed council terms from three to four years was so that they'd be more inclined to make tough decisions and not put them off. There's no mystery why there's a willingness to find a middle way here. Councillors on both sides are still feeling scalded, not to say a sheepish, over their mishandling of the Flamboro Downs subsidy in the spring. You'll recall that a deeply divided council voted 8-7 to funnel $4 million in slot machines revenue into the general levy instead of following past practices and using it to offset jumbo tax increases in Flamborough. Their stiff-necked inability to reach a compromise was, arguably, the lowest point of their term to date. They unnecessarily angered and polarized the community and poisoned their own working relationships. No doubt that it was the bitter aftertaste of that debacle that informed Mayor Fred Eisenberger's exceedingly timorous comment during the area rating debate that "harmony overrides fairness." Hardly a political slogan for the ages, let alone Eisenberger's re-election campaign. Nonetheless, it admirably conveys the depth of the divide between the old city and amalgamated suburbs. |
Quote:
|
Assessment map faces a change
Area rating could be on its way out August 09, 2008 Nicole Macintyre The Hamilton Spectator If anyone can tee off on Hamilton's golf courses, who should foot the cost of running the greens? As it stands, only residents of the old city pay to operate the municipal courses. It's the same tax policy across Hamilton. Ancaster residents pay for their arena. Stoney Creek residents pay for Battlefield Park. And old city residents pay for the Farmers' Market and Dundurn Castle. But probably not for long. City council agreed this week to reopen the tax debate on who pays for what. It's a tough issue that's divided suburban and urban councillors and residents since amalgamation. The formal term is area rating. The province gave the new city the tool after amalgamation to limit the tax impact for incoming communities. Essentially, the suburbs pay less for receiving less culture and recreation, transit and fire service. Without area rating, places such as Flamborough would have seen an immediate tax hike of close to 30 per cent. But over the years, city staff say, the tax policy has become less accurate. A recent review noted the tax divisions are still based on old boundary lines when services are not. Staff plan to report back this fall on ways to improve the tax system. Area rating could be eliminated or broken down into a new urban-rural split. Culture and Recreation: In 2001, there were different fees for activities across the new city. Now everyone pays the same. Plus, staff question if it's still appropriate to only charge residents for facilities in their geographic areas when each of the facilities is open to everyone. Staff want to explore phasing out this form of area rating. Transit: Residents in suburbs pay far less for transit because they have less service -- but one trip connects riders to the whole system. Transit taxes are currently decided by the number of service miles available in each community. But staff want to explore a new model that would determine the rate based on a two- or three-tier service rating. Essentially, prime transit areas would pay the most, secondary areas would pay less and areas without any transit would pay nothing. Fire: Taxes for fire service are cheaper in the suburbs, which continue to have composite workforces with both full-time firefighters and volunteers. But some parts of the suburbs are now getting service from full-service stations without paying the extra cost. A consultant is mapping the city to see if there's a more equitable way to divide the cost. Who pays for what? What different residents pay based on an average house assessed at $207,000 905-526-3299 Stoney Creek Fire: $191 Transit: $56 Culture & Rec: $66 Total: $313 Glanbrook Fire: $62 Transit: $66 Culture & Rec: $34 Total: $162 Ancaster Fire: $212 Transit: $36 Culture & Rec: $85 Total: $333 Hamilton Fire: $341 Transit: $189 Culture & Rec: $165 Total: $695 Dundas Fire: $224 Transit: $45 Culture & Rec: $85 Total: $354 Flamborough Fire: $177 Transit: $32 Culture & Rec: $51 Total: $260 |
Its amazing to me that downtowners pay the most for transit according to these stats and yet mountain councillors were crying how converting streets to 2 way would chew up so much of THEIR constituents' tax dollars... :shrug:
|
Residents in Downtown and Mountain pay the same for area rating.
|
Whitebread actually has some good commentary on area rating on his website:
http://terrywhitehead.typepad.com/bl...on-area-r.html |
Mayor Eisenberger wants public input on area-rating debate
Controversy could ‘drive a knife’ into successes, says rural councillor By Kevin Werner, News Staff News Oct 16, 2009 http://www.ancasternews.com/news/article/191538 In an attempt to prevent a potentially explosive issue that could destroy this council’s term, Mayor Fred Eisenberger is proposing to delay a decision on the future of arearating until after 2010. Mr. Eisenberger confirmed he will introduce a recommendation to begin a public consultation process to debate the future merits of area-rating. “I’m working on a process that would allow a greater degree of discourse that will be critically important,” he said in an interview. “I think it needs input, a greater degree of understanding.” Mr. Eisenberger did not reveal the entire public process he is contemplating, but said it involves more than just holding public information sessions. “It’s beyond public meetings,” he said. “I’m not ready to put the whole thing on the table. (But) it will be a fair, pro-active inclusive citizen engagement process.” He expects the public process not to be finished until after the 2010 municipal election. Any new area-rating policy won’t be implemented until early in council’s next term, he said. Hamilton politicians were getting ready to re-open the emotional hot-button issue in an attempt to restructure it, or at the insistence of some urban councillors, eliminate the tax policy altogether. Mr. Eisenberger said he wants to avoid the discussion entirely because it will “kill the momentum” Hamilton has been generating recently. Glanbrook Councillor Dave Mitchell said re-opening the controversial topic of arearating is the “biggest, hottest, major decision for this city going. It could drive a knife into any successes we’ve had.” Last month some councillors confirmed city staff were recommending in a report a number of options for area-rating, including eliminating recreation and culture from the area-rating policy. The meeting was cancelled and the issue put off until October. City financial staff in 2008 had proposed a number of suggestions to reform area-rating, including having the former suburban areas pay for the services they receive on an urban/rural split, and systematically removing the services from the area-rating system. Eliminating all the services from area-rating could mean tax hikes of between 10 and 12 per cent for suburban residents. Under the Municipal Act once a service has been removed from being area-rated, it can’t return. Mr. Eisenberger said he expects staff’s area-rating report will be presented to councillors either in late October or early November. He expects his motion will accompany the report. When amalgamation occurred in 2001, area-rating was adopted to exempt suburban homeowners from paying taxes for services they don’t receive. It softened somewhat the blow of higher taxes that were expected from amalgamation. The services that were area-rated included storm sewers, seniors’ tax credit, Flamboro slot revenues, fire services, recreation and culture, and transit. Over the following eight years councillors have systematically removed the services from the system until only recreation and culture, transit and fire are now area-rated. Suburban councillors remain adamant that area-rating remain. “There is an inequity here,” said Mr. Mitchell. If area-rating is eliminated, “people in Binbrook will pay for services they don’t receive.” Mr. Eisenberger, who during his 2006 mayoral campaign, promised to keep arearating, now says the system needs to be transformed because of Hamilton’s changing demographics. Mr. Eisenberger has become more accepting of possibly establishing an urban/rural tax policy for the city along the lines of what Ottawa has installed. “I’m not on for throwing it out,” he said. “But we need to look at what has changed over the last year and how the urban and rural (areas) have been altered. There is a sense an urban and rural split on area-rating makes some sense.” |
Quote:
|
It's about time area rating was done away with. The outlying areas will never get the same services offered in the more urban areas of the city, if the city doesn't have the money to pay for them.
As it is right now any improvements made in the rural areas are being paid for by the old city residents and that has been the case since regionalization in 1972. |
I'd like to see a comparison of:
dollars collected in taxes for downtown per square foot vs dollars collected in taxes for low density areas (like Flamborough) per square foot. I have heard people from Waterdown and Flamborough say their "density is high".. although a quick scan on google maps or google earth shows otherwise. |
Get ready for the Area Rating War.....
Area Rating Options http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/...ingOptions.pdf |
Council eyes property tax reform
Area rating would reflect services used November 23, 2009 Emma Reilly The Hamilton Spectator http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/677615 It's one of the most sensitive and controversial issues that has plagued city council for almost a decade -- and it's all about your money. The issue is area rating, and it determines how Hamiltonians are taxed based on where they live. Tomorrow, city staff will present a report to council members that outlines proposed changes to the system. The current area rating system was implemented after amalgamation in 2001 to ease the tax burden on the five towns that joined the old city of Hamilton. Since then, each former municipality has been taxed differently based on the recreation, transit and fire services they receive. However, Rob Rossini, the city's manager of finance, says these tax divisions are still based on old boundary lines when services are not. Currently, some rural areas are using services for which they aren't being taxed and urban areas are picking up the tab. "We preserved a certain type of taxing system based on a snapshot of how services were delivered back then," said Rossini. "Things have changed." On the table are proposals to change transit and fire area rating to reflect service areas rather than ward boundaries, stop area rating culture and recreation programs, and adding sidewalks and street lighting to the area rating pool. The report also recommends phasing in the plan in two stages -- 2011 and 2015 -- so residents in rural areas won't face an immediate large tax hike. "This is very much a go-slow approach. It's two stages, seven years -- because it does have impacts," Rossini said. Residents of the urban areas of Glanbrook could face the biggest increase -- 3.1 per cent each year, 2011 to 2014, and an additional 0.7 per cent a year, 2015 to 2017. At the same time, residents of the old city of Hamilton will see their taxes drop 0.7 per cent each year during the first phase and 0.4 per cent each year during the second phase. City staff say their top priorities are to keep the process revenue neutral -- meaning the city won't use the process to bump up its tax income -- and that no one will face service cuts. Mayor Fred Eisenberger has proposed forming a citizens' jury to get public input about the plan. The jury, which would be made up of randomly selected citizens across the city, would deliberate on area rating and report back to council in November 2010. Although staff has included the option of eliminating area rating, Eisenberger said he doesn't want to abolish it entirely. "No one's talking about the elimination of area rating. This is not about elimination," he said. "It's about making adjustments that have built up in the last nine years. The question is, how much more has been urbanized?" |
Mayor Fred tries to duck tough decision
ANDREW DRESCHEL The province changed council terms from three to four years in order to give local politicians more time to make tough decisions instead of dodging them. Yet faced with the difficult issue of reforming a controversial tax policy, Mayor Fred Eisenberger is doing exactly the opposite. He’s urging council to put off making a decision until after the 2010 municipal election, a full year from now. Any way you slice it, that’s hardly an example of strong and decisive leadership. Eisenberger argues a deferral will allow for public input on a sensitive issue that could easily degenerate into an ugly, divisive debate along urban-rural lines. Perhaps. But a lengthy delay such as he’s proposing perpetuates a policy widely recognized as unfair. It also smacks way too much of political weakness. The issue is area rating, a system that has been used since amalgamation to soften suburban residential tax rates by permitting different areas to pay different amounts depending on the recreation, fire, and transit services they receive. The problem is, over the years the system has proven to be both unfair and illogical since the tax breaks are based on ward boundaries not service delivery. That means, in some cases, residents on opposite sides of the streets are paying higher amounts for the same services. Tomorrow, councillors will deal with a staff report that outlines reform options and suggests a public consultation process. But last week, Eisenberger neatly got ahead of the debate by calling for a randomly selected “citizens’ jury” to report back to staff and council with recommendations. Under Eisenberger’s proposal, the panel would deliver its report Nov. 30, 2010, about two weeks after the civic election. Councillor Sam Merulla believes the jury is a “political ploy” by the mayor to defer the inevitable until after his re-election campaign. “He’s afraid of losing support in the suburban area.” Merulla argues a citizens’ jury won’t tell councillors or staff anything they don’t already know. “We know what the issue is. The question is do we have the courage to deal with it?” Exactly. Eisenberger acknowledges area rating has to change. But he believes the community needs to be educated about its complexities and have a say before council takes the plunge. He fears a fractious debate will threaten Hamilton’s unity at a time when it needs to be developing momentum. Fair enough. But public consultation is one thing. To deliberately time it to an election is both politically mouse-hearted and evasive, particularly since council terms of office were extended to avoid these kinds of procrastinations. Councillors last dealt with this issue in summer 2008. They originally voted 8-7 to delay a decision until after the 2010 election. But the next day, in an abrupt turnaround, they unanimously voted to study and then implement a new system by 2011. Interestingly, several councillors as well as members of the media came away from that meeting with the distinct impression they actually voted to make a decision later this term which would be implemented in the next term. Surprising many, wording to that effect is not reflected in the motion. It’s the absence of that precise language that gave Eisenberger the opening he needed to suggest his citizens’ jury. Councillor Terry Whitehead insists the “spirit” of the previous vote was all about making a decision, not putting it off. Eisenberger disputes that interpretation. But there’s no disputing his jury idea is in keeping with his previous support for temporizing. “Harmony overrides fairness,” Eisenberger said back then. As I noted at the time, that’s hardly a political slogan for the ages. |
Area Rating Decision Is A Year Away
Ken Mann 11/24/2009 http://www.900chml.com/Channels/Reg/...spx?ID=1168525 It will be another year before Hamilton politicians deal with a divisive tax issue that dates back to amalgamation. City councillors have voted 8-to-7 in favour of Mayor Eisenberger's proposal to put the fate of area rating in the hands of a panel of citizens. The panel will make recommendations following next fall's municipal election. The mayor insists it's a chance to educate the public about what he predicts will be "the most fractuous and divisive issue that will be dealt with by this council or the next". Finance staff are suggesting that the current system of taxing for services like transit and fire, be gradually replaced by a system that better reflects changes to service levels that have occured over the past decade. The result would be higher costs in the suburbs, led by a 14% tax increase in Glanbrook and a 9% tax increase in Stoney Creek. General Manager of Finance Rob Rossini's proposal is to phase-in the changes over seven years in a bid "to balance the need for fairness with the speed at which that change occurs". Ward 4 Councillor Sam Merulla has led the charge amongst those hoping to have area rating eliminated immediately. He says that to do otherwise "is a betrayal of the inner city", which he notes is currently "subsidizing fire services in the suburbs". |
For anyone interested, Ottawa had a report done comparing costs for urban/inner suburban, suburban, rural and village residential development. They found that urban development pays significantly more taxes than the cost for city services, while the others all paid less taxes than the cost of services (i.e. urban subsidizing suburban and rural, although the suburban difference wasn't as bad). One of the big reasons rural residents cost a lot is the road budget... only 10% of the population was rural/village but they took up 44% of road operating (maintenance/snow clearing) budget and about 1/3rd of the capital budget.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa...cument%205.pdf |
:previous: Thanks for posting!
|
Quote:
For several of these continually recurring issues of citywide importance (e.g. urban vs. rural taxes and costs) me (or someone better at it than me) should make a visual representation of perception vs. reality and link to the hard evidence supporting it. I like what Hamilton Light Rail did for the benefits of light rail... something like that, for all issues.. I'll get on that the first spare minute I have... oh wait.. |
Looks like this upcoming election will turn into a referendum.
Area rating delayed for public input November 25, 2009 Emma Reilly The Hamilton Spectator http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/678883 City council has postponed a decision about Hamilton's controversial tax system to allow for a year-long public consultation process. In a narrow 8-7 decision yesterday, council approved Mayor Fred Eisenberger's proposal to form a citizens' jury that will debate area rating. The jury will be made up of randomly selected citizens who will report back to council on Nov. 30, 2010 -- five weeks after the Oct. 22 election. In August 2008, council unanimously agreed to implement changes to area rating in 2011. However, several councillors believed they had voted to update the area rating system this term and implement it after the next election. Eisenberger told council members he "strongly disagreed" that was the case, a position that angered several councillors. "It was very, very, clear -- this council was going to make the decision," said Councillor Scott Duvall, who orchestrated last year's motion. "Everybody at this table agreed to that. Everybody, Mr. Mayor, including yourself." Councillor Tom Jackson put forward a motion that would have shrunk the consultation timeline from a year to six months. He proposed the jury should report back June 30, 2010, rather than Nov. 30. "To me, that would stay in the vein of what council had approved a year ago," he said. "If the six months doesn't work, I won't be able to support this." Jackson's motion was also defeated by an 8-7 vote. The area rating system was implemented after amalgamation in 2001. Since then, each former municipality has been taxed differently based on the recreation, transit and fire services they receive. However, city staff say these tax divisions are still based on old boundary lines when services are not. It means some rural areas are using services for which they are not being taxed. Both of yesterday's votes were divided between urban and suburban lines, save for downtown Councillor Bob Bratina. He voted in favour of the citizens' jury along with the rural councillors. Bratina said he agreed to support the mayor before the meeting and said he wasn't swayed by any arguments at yesterday's meeting. "Nothing changed my mind." HOW THEY VOTED For: Bob Bratina, Fred Eisenberger, Lloyd Ferguson, Margaret McCarthy, Dave Mitchell, Robert Pasuta, Maria Pearson, Russ Powers Against: Chad Collins, Scott Duvall, Tom Jackson, Sam Merulla, Brian McHattie, Bernie Morelli, Terry Whitehead. |
Council votes to drag its feet for a year
Andrew Deschel Mayor Fred Eisenberger has developed a real knack for putting his foot in his mouth when it comes to dealing with area rating. Last year, while arguing in favour of putting off a decision so as not to offend the suburbs that benefit from the unfair tax policy, he maintained that, “Harmony overrides fairness.” Yesterday, while squeaking out an 8-7 victory to once again defer the vote, Eisenberger was at it again. But this time, he even topped his previous groaner. “It takes the city of Hamilton three months to change its underwear if something has to be done by committee,” he said. Truth to tell, he had already trotted out that line the day before while visiting The Spec editorial board to promote his idea of hiking the controversial issue off to a citizens’ jury. He used it by way of justifying why a citizens’ group would need a full year to study the matter. Oddly, Eisenberger seems blissfully unaware of how badly that statement reflects on him. Here he is, the mayor, sardonically commenting on how long it takes to get things done in Hamilton as if he has no say or is helpless in the face of a prevailing inertia. And yet, at the same time, he’s using the observation as if it somehow justifies his push to delay making a decision until after the next election, a full year from now. It’s as if Eisenberger has never heard the admonition that if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Make no mistake, Eisenberger is certainly a big part of the footdragging problem in this case. Let’s briefly recap. Area rating is a tax system used since amalgamation to cushion suburban tax rates by permitting different areas to pay lower amounts, depending on the recreation, fire and transit services they receive. The system, however, doesn’t always accurately reflect how services are actually delivered, which means, in some cases, the old inner city is subsidizing the more affluent suburbs. City staff studied the issue for more than a year and produced a report outlining options, including a compromise recommendation that more fairly aligns taxation to costs and service levels. Problem is, overhauling the system will mean suburban tax increases, which is anathema to suburban councillors. That’s why yesterday’s 8-7 vote virtually split along suburbaninner city lines. Bob Bratina was the only inner city councillor who voted in favour of Eisenberger’s idea of handing the hot potato off to a citizens’ group, which will report back after the 2010 municipal election. Eisenberger insists the timing has nothing to do with political convenience. But that’s pure banana oil. If that wasn’t the case, he and the suburban councillors would have supported Councillor Tom Jackson’s amendment to change the reporting date for the citizens’ group to June of next year. That would have allowed for six months of public consultation and still given this council an opportunity to vote on the change instead of handing it off to the next council to deal with. Jackson’s amendment lost 8-7, with the mayor leading the charge against it. Eisenberger’s drive to put off dealing with this touchy issue until after voters have gone to the polls clearly erodes his credibility as a new-style politician. I’ve said before that Eisenberger is growing in the job. I suppose this is more proof of it. His ducking and weaving suggest he’s added old-style political expediency and procrastination to his bag of tricks. Under his leadership, council has put off for tomorrow what could have been done today. Three months to change your underwear is no longer enough time in Hamilton. Mayor Fred has raised the bar to 12 months. |
well said Dreschel
|
Quote:
|
I don't think we do actually.
|
I've seen these types of organizations before, the ones where they start fresh at every meeting, holding the same debate over and over, never accomplishing anything.
|
http://raisethehammer.org/article/980/
Council Cop-Out on Area Rating Council is passing the buck by shifting the political heat that radiates from area rating off their own backs onto a randomly selected group of residents. By Ryan McGreal Nov. 25, 2009 Council has failed yet again to fix the thorny issue of area rating, the city's policy of charging different tax rates to different parts of the city for transit, recreation and fire services. Last night, instead of making a decision on area rating, a slim majority of councillors voted at a Committee of the Whole meeting to establish a citizens' jury of randomly selected citizens to spend the next year studying options to fix it. Area rating dates back to amalgamation as a way to soften the adjustment for surrounding municipalities, but Hamilton is the only city in Ontario with such a system. As a result, the old city of Hamilton pays nearly three times as much for transit as residents in Glanbrook, three and a half times as much as residents in Stoney Creek, four times as much as residents in Dundas, and nearly five times as much as residents in Ancaster. Back in 2008, Council acknowledged that the area rating system is broken and voted unanimously to endorse Councillor Scott Duvall's motion to resolve the issue before Council's mandate ends in the 2010 municipal election. However, Councillors are in dispute as to whether they had agreed to resolve area rating before the mandate ends and implement it in January 2011 (Duvall's contention), or else to resolve it in 2011, as Mayor Fred Eisenberger argued last night. Staff Recommendation Misses Point At last night's committee meeting, staff presented a recommendation to eliminate area rating by raising suburban rates and lowering urban rates so that everyone pays the same rate and the overall change is revenue-neutral for the city. I've been arguing that this is a terrible idea for transit: it would further deepen the conflict between urban and suburban ratepayers without generating any new money for transit, and it would effectively force the HSR to redistribute its already inadequate resources across an even larger area (given that the current rating assumes the old city gets more service and the suburbs get less service). On the other hand, if suburban rates were raised so that they are closer to what the old city pays - to $148 on a median-priced home compared to $195 on a median-priced home in the old city - the city would receive over $7 million in additional funding, which could then be used to improve service across the city. Unfortunately, the staff report is committed to making any change revenue-neutral - even though council did not instruct them to do this when they asked for a recommendation - and did not offer alternatives for the Councillors to consider. Politically Convenient Citizens' Jury The Committee of the Whole rejected the staff report but then narrowly passed Mayor Eisenberger's proposal for a citizens' jury. A compromise by Councillor Tom Jackson to have the citizen's jury run for six months instead of a year was narrowly defeated. Setting aside the fact that this means Council won't vote on area rating reform before the 2010 election, the decision feels like a cop-out. Council is passing the buck by shifting the political heat that radiates from area rating off their own backs onto a randomly selected group of residents. Councillors who supported the citizens' jury argue that it represents "public consultation", but real public input entails broad-based participation, two-way dialogue between the city and residents, and a final council decision that reflects the public will. A citizens' jury does none of this. A randomly-selected committee of residents may or may not do a better job of researching alternatives than staff, and they may or may not do a better job of choosing among options than elected Councillors; but they simply replace one narrow, closed process for another. It's hard not to conclude that the real value is political: the novelty of an uncommon deliberation process and the convenience of a scapegoat if the decision turns out to be controversial (and it will). Another Urban/Suburban Split Another interesting thing to come out of this was the sharp urban/suburban split in votes. With one notable exception, all the urban councillors voted against the citizens' jury and all suburban councillors voted for it. It almost precisely mirrors the recent vote split over the proposed HSR fare increase. The suburban councillors, who have the most to lose politically by fixing area rating, uniformly voted for the citizens' jury, which won't present its recommendations until after th 2010 election. On the other hand, all the urban councillors except Councillor Bob Bratina voted against the citizens' jury. Today, Bratina posted an essay on his website ("Area Rating", 2009-11-25) explaining his decision: Quote:
|
Duvall and Powers lay it on the line
Andrew Dreschel Deputy mayor Margaret McCarthy, who was chairing the council meeting, came equipped with a stopwatch to enforce the five-minute speaking rule. Councillor Sam Merulla came armed with a motion to make sure the future operating costs of any Pan Am Games facilities won’t be area rated, meaning suburban taxpayers will have to pay their fair share. But Councillor Scott Duvall, he came loaded for bear. With good reason. Last year, Duvall was widely credited with spearheading a compromise on area rating, the contentious tax policy that has pit the inner city against the suburbs since amalgamation. Back then, rather than accepting the status quo and studying the issue for two more years, the central Mountain councillor worked behind the scenes to get his colleagues to commit to voting on a new policy this term, which would be implemented when the new council takes over in January 2011. Trouble is, though council voted unanimously in favour of Duvall’s proposal, the voting deadline was not explicitly spelled out in the resolution. That omission gave Mayor Fred Eisenberger the wiggle room to propose handing the issue off to a citizens’ group for another year of study rather than voting on a staff recommendation to phase in a new policy ensuring the suburbs pay for the services they receive. Several inner city councillors have argued the mayor’s initiative flies in the face of the spirit and intent of Duvall’s work. Interestingly, the suburban councillors, who all support Eisenberger’s stance, have been uniformly silent on that score. Only Eisenberger has publicly denied Duvall’s version of events. He did so again the other night, before council ratified his citizens’ group in a 9-6 vote. Those denials clearly got under Duvall’s skin. Neither a fluent nor well-ordered speaker, he is at his best when he shoots from the heart. He unloaded all four chambers at Eisenberger. Everybody around the council table, said Duvall, knew that the thrust of his motion was to vote this term, not put it off until after the next election. “Anybody who believes that wasn’t the intent of that motion should take a good look in the mirror because whoever he sees there is fooling himself. “That’s the person you’re fooling, nobody else.” Duvall then took Eisenberger to task for suggesting civic harmony is more important than fairly paying for city services. “I guess you can have harmony as long as you pick it out of someone’s pocket and say that’s fair.” Others laid it on the line, too. Terry Whitehead held up a list of 300 households in his west Mountain ward located on the border with Ancaster. He said each of them get exactly the same services as their suburban neighbours across the street, yet, thanks to area rating, they’ve paid $2.5 million more in taxes since amalgamation. East-ender Chad Collins dismissed claims that the issue is so complex, the public needs to be consulted and educated for a year. “It’s not like we’re trying to teach people how to read Egyptian hieroglyphs,” he said. “I don’t want to inflame people, but at its base what we’re talking about is paying for services that you receive.” But only Russ Powers of Dundas came close to matching Duvall’s raw sincerity. After praising staff’s analysis of the issue, Powers explained why he supported the mayor’s plan instead of staff’s recommendation. “Am I selfish? Yes. Am I parochial? Yes. Am I biased? Yes. “But would you stand for a 7.3 per cent increase for your residents if the vote was put to you now? The answer would be no, you wouldn’t.” True, Powers neglected to say that staff wants to phase in all increases over eight years. But give him full marks for honestly identifying what’s motivating the suburbs — selfishness, parochialism and bias. |
Citizens’ Forum Report on Area Rating
http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/...en_s_Forum.pdf Summed up: Citizens’ Forum endorses the staff recommendation on Transit Citizens’ Forum endorses the staff recommendation on Culture and Recreation Citizens’ Forum rejects staff’s recommendation on Sidewalk Snow Removal in Ward 12. Citizens’ Forum endorsed the staff position on area-rating sidewalks and streetlights |
Looks like council is going to finally vote on the area rating next week. The next day they'll finalize the vote.
|
Area rating: Nobody gets a break
City council has put the area rating debate to bed. But if you’re an urban taxpayer, don’t expect your taxes to drop. The city voted Thursday to institute a new system for area rating that adds a “special capital levy” to only the old city of Hamilton. That extra tax – which will bring in an additional $3.4 million to city coffers each year – will be spent on infrastructure updates in the old city alone. That also means that every area of the city will face a tax increase in 2011. Council’s decision on area rating – which was years in the making – was lauded as a compromise that satisfies both urban and suburban councillors. Councillors spent the majority of Thursday morning’s budget meeting congratulating staff and their colleagues for finally tackling the issue. “The fact that we can support this motion here today dispels dysfunctionality around this table,” said Councillor Terry Whitehead. “We put the most divisive debate since amalgamation to bed. That’s a credit to everyone around this table.” “I’m so proud of this group to have this kind of discussion at the end of this long and difficult road,” said Mayor Bob Bratina. The final vote was unanimous and was met with a standing ovation from senior staff. Area rating, the city’s tax system, has long been a contentious issue for councillors. Since amalgamation, people in the suburbs have paid less than their urban counterparts because they have traditionally received fewer fire, recreation, and transit services. However, in the years since amalgamation, those services have expanded to rural areas without an adjustment of their tax rates. That means some rural areas are benefitting from services that they’re not paying for. The area rating update was intended to redistribute the tax rates across the city to ensure that all areas of the city are paying for the services they receive. It was also intended to be revenue neutral – meaning it would just redistribute the taxation levels in the city instead of bringing in more money to city coffers. However, under this new plan, the city will collect an additional $3.4 million every year from urban taxpayers. http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...y-gets-a-break |
I don't know what they're so proud of, this is a recipe for the same old same old, which is the suburbs leeching the rotting carcass of the old city.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 2:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.