Golden Farmers' Market

There has been much discussion in the community resulting in a number of emails to various councillors. In response to some of the questions posed to me I want to offer the following answers.

What has council done that affects the Golden Farmers’ Market (GFM)?

At the present time council has made no changes to the fee for the Temporary License of Occupation required by the GFM to operate neither the Wednesday nor the Saturday markets. The Standing Committee on Finance has made the following resolution which was intended to take effect in 2015.

“That the Standing Committee on Finance recommend to council a Temporary License of Occupation policy amendment that contemplates a Mobile Vendor Association fee of $3.50 per parking stall per day..”

Council will debate this issue at the regular council meeting on June 10^th and decide upon a course of action at that time. If the amendment is approved by council the annual fee to use 16 parking stall in the CP parking lot for the summer, 15 Wednesdays, would be $840. 

Why review the fees for a Temporary License of Occupation?

It has been bought to the attention of council that the current fee structure was inequitable and disadvantaged several businesses in the downtown core. Council requested that the Standing Committee on Finance (SCOF) review the fee for Mobile Vendor Associations and report back to council. This has been done.

How can council justify the increase in TLO fees?

It is incumbent upon council to treat all businesses equally. Council cannot favour nor subsidize individual businesses. The SCOF has recommended that the fee for the Mobile Vendor Association be on par with the fee for Sidewalk Cafes. To achieve parity with the Sidewalk Café fee of $100 per month per parking stall, the fee for the Mobile Vendor Association should be $3.50 per day per parking stall. 

Is the GFM a not-for-profit organization?

The Golden Farmers’ Market is a Mobile Vendor Association and I believe is not for profit, however the individual vendors are most certainly businesses and are participating in the farmers’ market with the intention of making a profit.

Will the increase result in the demise of the GFM?

It is inconceivable that a fee of $3.50 per day per parking stall would cause the demise of the Wednesday GFM. Although there are 16 parking stall in the area occupied by the GFM, it is typically occupied by 20 vendors. Hence each vendor would need to contribute $2.80 per day. 

Who pays for the CP parking lot?

The town of Golden has recently renewed the lease with CP for the use of the parking lot at $9,000 per year escalating at 3% per year for the next 3 years. This is paid for from property tax revenue. So in essence all Golden tax payers are subsidizing the Golden Farmers’ Market. 

Case on point

One of the regular vendors at the Wednesday GFM, Stoke Roasted, is from Revelstoke. The bags of coffee he sells are in direct competition to the Bean Bag coffee roasted right here in Golden. Now I encourage competition and welcome his presence however, is it fair that the town gives the Revelstoke company a better deal than the deal we give to our local businesses?

The cups of coffee he sells are in direct competition to the several coffee shops we have in town who have received their 2014 property tax bills this week. 

Every Wednesday he drives from Revelstoke and with the current cost of gas, I’m sure he spends more on gas than the $2.80 per day TLO fee for a prime location in Golden.

Most of the money he makes goes back with him to Revelstoke.

How does this help the local small downtown businesses?

Should the small struggling businesses in town have to subsidize their competition?

Next Step

The executive and vendors of the GFM will be invited to speak at the regular open council meeting at 7pm on Tuesday June 10^th. I encourage you all at attend and participate in the debate.

The opinions expressed in this blog are my personal opinions and may not represent the opinions of other councillors nor the opinions of council.

Draft Audited Financial Statements 2013

The town’s independent auditors, Adams Wooley, presented the 2013 draft audited financial statements at the regular open council meeting on April 29^th. 

Lower long-term debt combined with higher reserve funds resulted in a much improved net debt position. The town’s net debt at the year ended December 31 was $100,942 compared with a net debt of $721,372 in 2012 and $1.448 million in 2011. 

The long-term debt at the year ended December 31, declined from $3.515 million in 2012 to $3.262 million in 2013. Reserve funds in 2013 were reported to be up to $3.130 million at year end 2013, an increase of 16% over last year.

Still of concern is the annual deficit; on an annual basis expenses are greater than revenues.

Revenues for 2013 were reported as $8.738 million compared with $8.645 million in 2012. Revenue in these financial statements includes senior government grants, both conditional and unconditional.

Conditional grants usually provide funds for one-off capital projects like the Resort Municipal Initiative grants and vary from year to year, making the comparison of revenue from year to year not very meaningful. In 2013 Golden received conditional grants of $594,448 compared with $598,185 received in 2012 and $2.783 million in 2011.

Conditional grants cannot be used to pay for operating expenses. Including them in revenue overstates the revenue available to pay operating expenses, distorting the true financial picture. 

Excluding conditional grants, revenue from all sources including property taxes, and water and sewer fees in 2013 was $8.143 million a slight increase of 1.2% over $8.047 million collected in 2012.

The reported deficit for 2013 was $308,020 compared to a deficit of $500,517 reported in 2012. If conditional grants were excluded from revenues, the annual deficit for 2013 would be $902,468 compared with $1.1 million last year.

Total operating expenses for 2013 at $9.046 million were slightly lower than those reported in 2012 at $9.146 million. This reduction in general government expense reflects the elimination of senior management positions part way through 2013.

Operating expenses remain too high in relation to revenues and will limit the amount of money available for future capital projects, maintenance and upgrades to the town’s infrastructure (water, sewer, roads and buildings).

In 2013, only $1.703 million was expended on capital infrastructure, well below the amount required to maintain the tangible capital assets (town’s infrastructure). Money that should be going to support infrastructure is being used to fund operating expenses.

To attain financial sustainability, the annual deficit must be eliminated. To achieve this expenses must be reduced by $902,468 and the money added to the capital budget or reserve funds to maintain the town’s infrastructure.

The opinions expressed in this blog are my personal opinions and may not represent the opinions of other councillors nor the opinion of council.

2014 Tax Rate Bylaw; A Win-Win

The 2014 Tax Rate Bylaw that was given third reading last week represents a win-win proposition for all taxpayers.

Tax revenues collected by the town in 2014 will increase by 2 percent; a win for the town!

However the average home owner and small business owner will see a small decrease in their property tax bills; a win for the tax payers! Sounds too good to be true?

This fortuitous situation has arisen as a consequence of correcting the mill rate for Class 2 properties to 40, the maximum allowed under the community charter, combined with an increase in Class 2 market value.

Class 2 properties, owned by utilities such as BC Hydro and Telus, will pick up approximately $44k of the $86k tax increase for 2014. The rest of the tax increase will be picked up by new properties, resulting in the average pre-existing Residential (class 1) and Small Business (class 6) experiencing a small decrease.

For more background see my blog “Revenues Lost!”

The opinions expressed in this blog are my personal opinions and may not represent the opinions of other councillors nor the opinions of council.

 

Borrowing Bylaw Postponed

In December 2013, Council gave first, second, and third reading of Golden Loan Authorization Bylaw 1326 (Councillor Hern opposed). Council directed staff to forward the loan authorization bylaw to the province for approval in anticipation of a referendum in early 2014 permitting $5 million in borrowing to fund the town’s portion for the New Building Canada Fund (NBCF). I opposed the bylaw as I felt that borrowing was not warranted at that time.

The province would not approve the loan authorization bylaw as it did not specifically stipulate the amount that will be borrowed and to which projects and what amounts it will be directly applied.

In a report to council on Tuesday, staff wrote;

“While it is clear that completing a significant number of the infrastructure projects will require a measure of long term borrowing, staff feels it is not the appropriate time to do so;

• Council still has yet to establish a comprehensive reserve policy which will have  significant long-term policy effects on the scope and nature of services in the future; 
• Significant short-term borrowing for fleet replacements will imminently impact debt load over the near term;
• Federal gas Tax revenues are still uncertain; 
• The asset management and other reserves have some capacity and resiliency;
•  Current revenues and expenditures cannot support raising the corporate debt load; 
•  Utility rates have yet to undergo review and adjustment this year and;
• The practicality of holding a borrowing bylaw referendum now dictates it should be undertaken at the time of the general election, a prospect formerly indicated by (some) councillors as undesirable.”

The report went on to state; “It is the staff’s position that following the reserve restructuring exercise and utility rate review slated for later this year, a review of short term borrowing implications, Gas tax reconciliation, the election, the financial planning process for the 2015 budget, and a strategic priority setting session next spring and our corporate work plan capacity, council and the corporation will be in a far better position to determine the scope and nature of a future borrowing bylaw as well as its specific application”

Clearly town staff are moving in the right direction!

In response to this report, Council approved a list of projects proposed by the staff that can be financed using NBCF support without borrowing. 

I fully support this action. To see the reasons for my opposition to the Borrowing Bylaw Click Here

The opinions expressed in this Blog are my personal opinions and may not represent the opinions of other councillors nor the opinions of council.

Funding Kicking Horse Culture

There was an interesting and open debate at Tuesday night’s council meeting regarding the ongoing funding for Kicking Horse Culture. Since 2006 the town and the CSRD have provided joint funding through Golden Area Initiatives (GAI) to fund the Cultural Services Contract with KHC. Since 2009, KHC received $120,000 per year under this contract.

In 2013 the tripartite funding agreement that provided funding for the GAI was terminated by the town. To facilitate the ongoing operation of KHC for 2014, the town replaced the GAI as the contracting party under the Cultural Service Contract and the town and the CSRD agreed to fund KHC with $120,000 from the Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF). The EOF had been funding the GAI to the tune of $100,000 per year.

KHC has requested that the Cultural Services Contract be renewed for another 3-year term (2015-2017) on the same terms and conditions. At the council meeting on Tuesday, council passed a resolution to continue the funding from property taxes, and for Mayor Benty to petition the CSRD board to do likewise. I had suggested that a review of all the funding options, including membership fees and ticket pricing, should be undertaken with both the KHC management and the CSRD regional director at the table.

Petitioning the CSRD board without complete analyses of the funding options and gaining the full support of the regional director is unlikely to succeed. In fact this action will entrench positions and make the creation of a stable financial platform more difficult to achieve. Consequently I voted against the resolution.

KHC adds a valuable cultural dimension to Golden and the regional district, one that should be preserved and encouraged to grow. I am a member of KHC and have attended a number of KHC events, however I feel a twinge of guilt knowing that my entertainment is being subsidised by other people’s property taxes.

 I believe that property tax payers should control how their entertainment and recreational dollars are spent. Would it be better to keep property taxes low and leave money in people’s pockets that they can spend on KHC or maybe going to the movie theatre instead if they prefer?

No other society enjoys the privileged position enjoyed by KHC. There are no operating grants for the golf course, the Nordic centre nor the ski hill. It could be argued that these activities are economic drivers larger than KHC but they stand alone without operational subsidies. The movie theatre does not enjoy any cultural grants.

Should property tax payers be allowed to support whatever activity they choose with direct contributions to the societies they consider worthwhile? Or should they be forced to support an activity they neither enjoy nor participate in? Should there be a referendum question regarding funding these type of activities? Should the town expand its subsidies to include the golf course, the Nordic centre and the hang gliding club?

I am interested in your opinion and would appreciate a few minutes of your time to complete my survey on KHC, if you have not already done so. The system only allows one submission per computer.

Click here to give your opinion

 

The opinions expressed in this blog are my personal opinions and may not represent the opinions of other Councillors nor the opinions of council.