At 12/14 Council the 1st draft of budget was presented and discussed. Blended impact of the proposed property tax increases by York Region and King and assuming continuation of 0% increase on Education is an increase of 2.27% for King residents; impact on a property assessed at $664,000 is $142. The specifics for the King portion are an increase of 2.95% which is $67 on the average property assessment of $664,000. As I review further below, a couple critical gaps in the budget plan were identified and Staff has been directed to make some changes. In addition there are some choices with which I am not comfortable.
Staff were directed to modify the budget to address the roads and sidewalks in the south west core of King City. The draft budget showed this work being done in 2017 with a cost estimate of $1.4 million. I believe the Council concurs that executing the work in 2016 is the right thing to do and as there are funds in our infrastructure reserve I anticipate this project being included in the budget with that funding strategy. (Alternative funding would be to either drop other projects or augment the property tax increase.)
Another project of particular interest to Ward 5 is restoration and upgrade to Memorial Park. Specifically: consolidating the 2 playgrounds, rejuvenating it with new equipment and surfacing the entire playground with rubberized surfacing; upgrading both diamonds including modifying the upper one to accommodate hardball. (The diamond projects will be accomplished over 2 years.) Budget for 2016 is $478,000 and further $650,000 in 2017; financing source is primarily property taxation with some development charges (DC)and government.
Work to provide additional outdoor public space at the Heritage & Cultural Centre and the adjacent residential subdivision will be done in 2016 and 2017. The end product will be an outdoor amphitheatre, trails and landscaping; given the theatre space, additional parking will be built. The latter will be paved with a permeable rubberized surface; and Staff secured a grant from Ontario Tire Stewardship to cover incremental cost of the high end surface. Major source of funding for total project is DC’s. I am thrilled that we are installing a permeable surface. This will be a first for King Township. I hope that is just the beginning of using as such surfaces are a great way to mitigate climate change i.e. heavy, frequent rainfalls.
In the last few years new water meters have been installed across the Township. In budget there is funding to allow remote reading of them. Once implemented this will give users easily accessible data to enable them to manage their consumption to achieve reductions; and very importantly it will allow speedy identification of leaks etc.
As I indicated at the outset I am not comfortable with some of the choices made in the draft budget. The budget “battles” are about timing. Is it right to raise the property tax “today” in order to get something done now as opposed to waiting for a couple years. Pre- 2010, its evident that too often work was not done, tax increases were kept low; the result is that there has been a significant backlog of road work to be done. We are still in a catch up mode; each year we are adding operating tax funds to capital to ensure that we can get necessary work done. But, I question whether we are being too cautious. Having said that caution is required as our tax base is small: one property tax point is worth about $220,000.
Next steps: Revised draft budget will presented to Council 1/25 with an expectation of it being approved. That budget will be made available to Council and public for review around 1/20.
Debbie, thank you again for keeping constituents well up-to-date with important matters coming before council and for sharing your insights and thoughts.
I would prefer to see the overall King Township annual budget keep in line with the Canadian inflation rate, especially in light of many older residents who are on fixed incomes and pensions indexed to the inflation rate.
I understand the current yearly inflation rate in Canada is about 1.4%. In addition to a proposed 2.95% tax increase, King Township has recently announced water and sewer rates will be increasing 10% in each of the next four or five years, and I believe hydro rates are also increasing significantly (way above inflation rate).
In light of the current CPI Inflation rate and in the face of the proposed increases by the Township in Water & Sewer rates and the municipal tax for 2016, along with increased hydro rates, finances for those on pensions indexed to inflation or on fixed incomes theoretically become unsustainable.
Financial sustainability is one of the core pillars of the Township’s Sustainability Plan. I believe we must give serious consideration to applying the sustainability principle in an individual’s finances too, as tax increases are reviewed. Otherwise we begin to price out residents who have vested many years in King Township and may not have the financial resources to keep up.
It always seems the Township taxes are increasing at a higher rate than inflation each year.
Thank you again for the opportunity to express these concerns.
Bruce Craig
Hello Bruce, First I want to apologize for not posting your comment sooner and replying sooner. I have just “found” your comments, and those from others; I have a technical problem: I am not being alerted in my email about comments.
Secondly and more importantly I want to address the points you have raised. I understand what you have said and I share the concerns you have expressed about the increases in taxes and water/sewer rates. But we differ on how to characterize the concerns; I think the concerns you have raised are about “affordability.” The increases being implemented are being done to be sustainable. The water and sewer rate increases are about ensuring that dollars will be in place for maintenance and eventual replacement; the latter is explicitly demanded by legislation which was created after the Walkerton tragedy. Much of this kind of infrastructure is fairly new in our municipality; hence, there is truly the opportunity to build up significant reserves to deal with the need for replacement 20+ years down the road; when that is required it will have a huge price ticket. To mind this is acting in a sustainable manner: users today are “paying forward.”
In contrast much of how we are spending revenues from our property taxes and the proposed increase is being driven by choices made by Councils pre2010 to not fund necessary work on our transportation infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, bridges, culverts) nor to contribute to reserves. Because we are in a catch up mode, priorities are being set which are sensitive to urgency (e.g. can repaving be delayed one more year??). I think we are making very tough choices.
Hi Debbie,
Just a quick note regarding rubberized surfaces for playgrounds and possibly for parking areas. While these surfaces provide a level of safety and comfort in playgrounds and are permeable, the rubberized material comes from used tires and is noted to contain several chemical carcinogens.
Anecdotal evidence is raising significant concerns for children and sports players who are in contact with the rubberized surfaces. In addition environmental impacts on ground water especially near drinking water sources are also being raised.
I mention this for information purposes and growing awareness. I know there are other options for permeable surfaces in parking lots, and perhaps it would be wise and more cost-effective to investigate alternatives to the rubber surface.
All the best, Bruce
Hello Bruce, Over the last couple years I have heard a couple similar comments but it was anecdotal. I have touched base with our Staff to ensure that they are up to date with the science. I do know that TRCA has incorporated such surfaces into the Kortright facility so that says alot to me about safety in terms of impact on water.