It’s great that the city is looking to trim expenses ( we should always be looking to trim fat), perhaps though they could look at increasing revenue as well though. Making Vancouver more attractive for businesses would boost the city’s coffers enormously. Let’s just be smart about it and not do it via business subsidies like certain cities.

Increase:

Parking Meter Rates
Community Center Fees
Development Permit Fees
Parking Fines
Residential Parking Permit Rates
Water Rates
Property Tax 3%

And

Toll All Bridges to Downtown
Toll All Arterials in Rush Hours
Charge Tax On Vacant Condos
Charge Tax on Development Sites Converted as Community Gardens
Charge Fees To Be A Library Member
Open City Hall Four Days a Week

maybe once a month garbage pick up instead of weekly.

As I mentioned earlier, Vision has absolutely no mandate for keeping taxes at or below inflation. I don’t think we’ve had a tax increase that low in at least a decade. This is the money that needs to be spent on solutions to our severe drug, homelessness, mental health and tenancy housing problems. I hope no strategy-guru thinks they can dig into the NPA base with this without causing problems back home.

By the way, CPI inflation is actually negative right now so why they’re even mentioning going below inflation is beyond me. Maybe they’re talking about the CUPE inflation index, still healthy at 4%.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/cpi-ipc/cpi-ipc-eng.htm

@not running for mayor…

I hear they also looked for revenue opportunities but they were few and far between…

@westender thats what james ridge said too

The result of sustaining current ops would be an 8 – 10% tax increase every year…
the whole of the vsr project was well thought out, well resourced, and engaged staff, unions, and all departments.

@t the whole current parks board independence depate

This was an internal review that did not in any way consider the politics of the “governing party” Ask staff if “politics” was ever once a question.

Has Vancouver ever done an internal operational review? Ever? EVER?

WHY?

I hear that the VSR team interviewed more than 500 staff over the course of the review. I also hear that the entire CMT was involved in the strategic direction that was formulated.

From what I can ascertain, the 25 + staff that were selected and engaged full time for the for the whole 3 months of this project were extremely highly regarded by others at the COV and took a hard look at the CITY AS AN ENTERPRISE.

I also heard that there were a number of ways in which the decision makers (which in this context is the CMT) evaluated choices.

Of course the support was mixed but given the COV as an enterprise has never even once been reviewed in its entirety, are you surprised?

People, leave behind the entire political BS (Vision this; NPA that; Parks Boards this; COPE that, city manager this) out of this. The politics never weighed into the equation or the project. Its all about accountability to the taxpayer. The COV and all of its agencies, boards, entities should both be (a little) nervous and excited about the possiblities.

2 aspects of this disturb me. When staff have been challenged in the past to find more efficienies to avoid tax increases, the answer has been that the system is cut to the bone. Today we learn that there is places to cut that are long overdue. So… we are love overdue… does that mean we have been taxed un- necessarily in the past?

Westender suggests that property taxes are low compared to other cities – for whom? Residents – yes. For commercial rate payers – not so much. Vancouver commercial property taxes are the highest in the region and one of the highest in the country.

If council is intending to sort out the mess, it needs to also ensure that representational taxation become part of the solution.

make Vancouver more attractive for businesses in order to grow a long term tax base

Well the devil is in the details, innit? Right now Canadians are sitting on their savings (with good reason). Yes, 50-60 laid off (so far) is relatively low, but keeping civic taxes on business down by shedding staff and reducing services is going to do nothing for the confidence of the fickle consumer.

Just look at the public sector salaries database. There is over 300 people working for the city making $100,000/year with sweetheart pensions and benefits.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/features/public-sector-salary-database/index.html

One beauty is the Manager of the Eveylne Saller Centre. Makes $100k+ running a meal and support centre on the Downtown eastside. Mostly run by volunteers.

Or the Manager of Administration for Electrical Operations. $108,000/year. Not the Manager of Electrical Ops, the Manager of Administration for Electrical ops.

A senior manager at a big 3 accounting firm will make 90k/year/no pension, and that’s with a CA and 10 years of experience. The city pays the Manager of Administration $108k. It’s like a $65/hour.

And these are 2007 numbers.

“Managing Director of Cultural Services”. $135,000/year.
Hilarious!

The municipal property tax rate for Vancouver businesses is the highest of all municipalities in the Lower Mainland and the highest among major cities across Canada.
In Vancouver, businesses pay municipal property taxes at nearly six times the rate paid by residents – roughly double most neighbouring municipalities as well as double the national average.
In 1983, the Vancouver municipal property tax ratio for businesses compared to residents was 2.6:1. By 2005, this ratio had risen to 5.9:1. The 2007 tax ratio has fallen to 5.5:1.
The 2007 average tax ratio for businesses to residents in the Lower Mainland is 3.25:1. The average ratio nationally is 2.65:1.

you can also look here:
http://www.fairtaxcoalition.com/other_cities.htm
and here: http://www.fairtaxcoalition.com/news_other.htm

Let’s add up just four of the expenditures from Gregor’s tour of duty:

*Overpriced inauguration, when asked about the extra costs and if he regretted it, he said no and he’d do it again.

*A bike lane for $1,5 million that could be questioned whether truly necessary.

*They’ve given tax breaks to developers who allow community gardens on their downtown properties for future development. Oh and lets not forget about the unnecessary expense of Old McGregor’s farm at city hall when we tally the cost of these gardens throughout the city.

*Renos to city hall that could have been scaled back, including buying more new chairs because Gregor didn’t like the chemical release he was smelling.

These four have cost the city MILLIONS……. AND the list is incomplete by far.

Yes revenues have plunged, we’ve been hearing about this terrible economy for about 1 full year now.

For 10 of those months, Vision’s been in control not the NPA.

Penny Ballum has had no problems whatsoever in throwing her weight around, yet the first appearance of Raymond Louie on the news in months, has him blaming the NPA for approving the renos at city hall.

Is this about plunging revenues or a mayor and council pursuing a green agenda with absolutely no worry or care as to where the money will come from?

Well, its going to come from union hide. CUPE should be quite proud of their political choices in backing Vision, it’s working out lovely for them.

Well rf, I don’t speak for CUPE. And just to note, most of the jobs you’ve cited above aren’t part of CUPE bargaining unit.

It’s always funny, though, to hear fervent free-marketers denigrate the underlying fundamental principles of the free market. In this case, the sacredness of signed contracts.

You could lead by example, perhaps, and forgo your own income?

Vision’s Union puppeteers are not going to be happy.

The BC Fed thought they had dialed into the vault at City Hall and now all they will get is a knife in the back in the form of layoffs.

Cool. Socialism on the march.

I going to jump on the question of the efficacy of the $1.5m bike lane trial (big surprise) just to point out that hospital stays are very expensive and injury lawsuits due to known deficiencies in the old set-up have already had to be settled out of court. Given the injury statistics already compiled with regard to the Burrard Bridge, that money was well spent IMO.

As to CUPE members having to take a pay-cut to help with the situation, I don’t think any one group should be singled out. To quote Red Green, “we’re all in this together.”

If the contract calls for a cost of living adjustment, doesn’t that mean it could go down in line with CPI?

The collective agreements are online and, as you can see for yourself, there are no cost of living adjustments.

To quote Red Green, “we’re all in this together.”

To quote Paul Krugman: He’s talking about the current economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we faced a shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this, when they think about it — we’re in a world desperately short of demand. If you consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create jobs and raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt — and that’s just as true if you’re “the government” as if you’re my neighbor.

Bring on a city-wide curbside parking permit. Set the rate at $5 per day, with maybe a 20% discount for an annual permit. For every homeowner grant allow one free permit – and make it transferable, so your out-of-town visitor does not have to pay. (This concession would reward the property tax payer and help to sell the program to Vancouver residents.)

No need for new parking meters anywhere except high-traffic areas where higher rates are desired. Locate ticket dispensing machines everywhere. Let the towing companies provide free enforcement – and grow their business. Let even more revenue flow to the city from parking violation fines. Capitalize that municipal asset now.

Disincent the automobile. Deal with the unspoken and ever-growing residential-area nastiness that city planners refuse to talk about. Parking on streets should not come for free with three to four dwelling units per lot (widely possible with recent provisions for laneway structures and expanded basements: one main unit, one legal suite, one “illegal” suite, one laneway house).

Parking, parking. Fines and metres don’t work unless you can police them. It is difficult enough to do now on the arterials and city streets except by the ‘rush hour’ clearings.

Why not give up the illusion of the old decrepit city and let the S. of Burnaby take over administration. They would need only the front-line workers and a few extra staff.

And in the pretty pie charts they send out with Vancouver tax notices, the big pie slices are for police and fire, though they don’t break that down further. Time to cut those and instead prepare for the occasional emergency every few years instead of “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

I agree with those who suggest that we need to look at both reducing costs and increasing revenues. We also need to address the inequity between taxes paid by businesses (the number of which is decreasing) and residents (the number of which is increasing). For a more comprehensive look at these issues, check out the Fair Tax Coalition (FTC)
http://www.fairtaxcoalition.com/index.htm.

Whether you lean to the left or the right in your politics, I suspect that many of you will be surprised by some of the statistics that have been prepared by the city and province and put forth by the FTC.

For instance, a 2006 study carried out by the City of Vancouver estimated residential properties pay $0.56 for every $1 of city services they consume. Businesses, in contrast, pay $2.42 for every $1 of services consumed.

How did this come about? Well, from 1998 to 2007, although the number of housing units grew by 40,652…and population growth increased by 61,436, the total number of business licenses went from 50,666 to 46,555.

This could be in part due to the fact that in Vancouver, businesses pay more than 5 times the taxes that residents pay for a property with a similar value.

I therefore agree with those who are stressing the importance of keeping and attracting businesses in the city. I think this has to be paramount when reviewing where to cut, and where to increase revenues.

I would like to put forward another idea on somewhat related issue. Approximately 91% of the assessed properties in Vancouver are residential. However, our property assessment system does not distinguish between single family properties and multi-family properties. Taxes are based on MARKET VALUE, not SERVICES REQUIRED. To my mind, this is counter intuitive.

In parts of Viet Nam, taxes are based on the FRONTAGE WIDTH of a property, since a narrow property requires less road, less sidewalk, less sewers and water pipes.

In Vancouver, a single family home on a 60 foot lot, which over time requires far more city services than an apartment on the 15th floor of a downtown high-rise, should pay more city taxes, even if the market value of the two properties may be the same.

In other words, we should have different classifications for single family and multi-family residential properties, with corrresponding mill rates to reflect the cost of delivery of services.

Now I appreciate this will not necessarily help deal with the short term challenges , but it may help us over the longer term.

In the mid term, I think we need to make a more conscious effort to carry out an economic impact assessment of new projects, and consider the economic impacts of policies.

After all, sustainability is much more than being green. There are three legs to the ‘sustainability stool’…While we must think about ENVIRONMENT, let’s not forget about ECONOMY and EQUITY.

If Council again gives business a break on taxes, that has the same affect as an additional expenditure when the overall revenue-expenditure picture is addressed. There is a need to address this issue. For more see http://www.policycentre.ca/2009/09/23/time-to-rethink-property-tax-break-for-business/

MG I agree with your idea of taxing sfh more then condos, it could be handled the same way the current res/com imbalance is being handled with a 1%/per year. Of course this doesn’t solve the current problem, but since we’re in need of playing with the budget they could work on that too.
And although I rarely agree with J.Jones, I do like his idea of the whole city street parking network requiring a parking permit, with one free per household, a month fee of $50/month per additional permit outside the core should suffice for the time being.

spartikus, that FTC data is prepared by the provincial goverment (community services ministry) and city staff (Ken Bayne) and the consumption of services study was prepared by KPMG for the city.

Join the BCAS and VFD, make them share facilities with the BC government chipping in existing costs. Have it so VFD doesn’t show up for medical calls, only rescues/fires, you’d be able to cut back the fire dept without compromising anything.
Could probably get rid of the VPD traffic division and replace them with non-police staff although I’m not sure how much of a cost savings that would be.

Ahh the elephant in the room — the same as health, education, and transportation — is the City’s salaries. It’s a recession — that usually means muted wage hikes in the private sector, to which the City seems so eager to keep pace.

@Michael Geller: doesn’t much of the tax revenue from businesses come from outside the City, from sources not paying any Vancouver City taxes at all? Don’t these sources effectively use the City’s resources as well?

And I disagree about firefighters and policemen salaries. It’s a darn tough and dangerous job. There’s a reason why they are paid above equivalent skilled work elsewhere.

ah c’mon Jesse…. the military is heck of a lot more dangerous and they barely get half. Police I’m fine with, but I can’t remember the last time I heard about a firefighter losing their life in the line of duty. Haven’t heard of any getting shot at or having their trucks rammed either.
The fire department is an overpaid frat house, only more sexist.

Well, the $1.5 million for the Burrard Trial looks like a bargain compared to the millions in staff and consultant time that previous councils have spent on trying to figure out what to do. I bet the design for the sidewalk widening was about $2 million and the widening went no where. $1.5 million for actual action that solves a serious safety and liability issue for the city is money well spent. It sure bets the millions spent on inaction by the previous council.