The tax rate was set at one meeting, cancelled the next.
In a move so rare councillors had to consult closely with City staff on procedure, Quesnel’s councillors cancelled the tax allocation plan they had established only one meeting ago.
The process was bureaucratic. First, one of the members of council had to introduce a motion to reconsider the old motion, and it had to pass. That happened.
Second, a coucil member had to introduce a motion to repeal the old motion, but it had to be a councillor who did not previously vote against the original motion. That excluded its most vehement critics, Scott Elliott and Laurey-Anne Roodenburg, who indeed did vote against the Feb. 21 bylaw proposal to shift part of the tax burden this coming year from commercial payers to residential payers.
Therefore, someone who previously stood in favour of the tax shift had to be the one to make the official gesture. Councillor Tony Goulet expressed regret that the tax shift had occurred, so he would be the one to get the ball rolling.
It wasn’t going to happen without a fight.
“To reconsider is actually fairly serious,” said councillor Martin Runge during the first steps of the repeal process. “If we get into the habit of always recinding motions, no motion here will be sacred.”
Ron Paull replied that “in my long history here, I believe it’s the first time I’ve ever experienced this. This is a very rare occasion. We’re not in the habit of reconsidering, but I can see there is a demonstrated need here to reconsider.”
The demonstrated need was the public backlash over the plan to shift some of the upcoming year’s tax burden from the commercial sector (businesses) onto the residential sector (individuals).
Elliott and Roodenburg restated their original position that it was not good governing to push a bigger tax bill onto the people who, coming out of COVID and staring into a recession, had less ability to pay that bill than the town’s businesses, most of which were out-of-town chains and franchises doing very well on the ledger right now.
Councillor Mitch Vik, chair of the Financial Sustainability & Audit Comittee said the whole thing was his idea, and he stood behind it, still. His committee’s data showed that Quesnel’s commercial tax rate had drifted into paying a larger rate than it should, so this was merely a corrective measure.
“The data was available and pointed to a trend I felt was concerning,” said Vik and added that industrial taxation was likewise getting over-relied on compared to the residential stream.
But perhaps the timing was wrong, he added.
“I, like all councillors in the last couple of weeks, have certainly heard an earful,” he said. “The timing is awful. Burdening taxpayers is awful. But we also are beholden and responsible to other rate-payers as well as residential rate-payers. Maybe it’s too soon, maybe it’s too much, and I’m open to other ideas. But it’s a conversation we must have as a council. If no action now, then when?”
When the vote was called, it was councillors Goulet, Elliott, Roodenburg, and Debra McKelvie in favour of recinding the tax shift, which was enough to pass the motion.
The matter was not finished. Councillor Runge suggested, for the sake of expediency, as time ticked towards approving the final budget and determining the new tax allocations, since it wasn’t going to be a one per cent shift from commercial to residential, what might that allocation of burden look like? He made a follow-up motion to still shift that burden, only half a per cent, to residential from commercial. Councillor Vik seconded that motion.
Elliott replied “this is not the year to do any tax shifting. The people have been heard.”
Runge said back that he agreed, this year was not a good time, but next year was not going to be financially happy either, and “I worry that it’s never going to be a good time.”
He also broke down the numbers to state that taxes were going up across the board anyway, and the amount the shift would represent was about $30-$35 more per household.
The half per cent shift was also defeated.
After the vote Vik said “I don’t want it to be lost: this was a great conversation. We don’t agree on this, but this is what makes (the council process) work.”
