Skip to content

New tax review panel hears its first complaints

The three-member parcel tax review panel convened on April 21 to hear complaints against the tax and, after receiving statements from Carmel O’Flanagan against the Ophir Reservoir parcel tax, the panel authenticated both that tax and the water and sewer parcel tax.

The three-member parcel tax review panel convened on April 21 to hear complaints against the tax and, after receiving statements from Carmel O’Flanagan against the Ophir Reservoir parcel tax, the panel authenticated both that tax and the water and sewer parcel tax.

O’Flanagan began with an objection to Jackie Drysdale and Stephen Knox being on the panel because they were on council when the parcel tax bylaw was passed.

CAO Victor Kumar interjected: “This is not the place for those objections. This is not a council meeting.”

O’Flanagan responded, “I did send it to council, and it didn’t go to them.”

She questioned whether the calculation for this tax she and others will be paying for the next 20 to 25 years would be based on the number of units now, despite zoning changes in the future.

Manager of finance, Deb Timm, responded: “Every year the parcel tax will be open for counter-inspection, and we will adjust it as necessary if there are differences in zoning.”

Then O’Flanagan hit the crux of her opposition: “I don’t believe we’re getting what we paid for,” she said. “The project went considerably over budget and the council changed the design specification in order that it be completed.”

She felt, therefore, that the obligations to the tax-paying owners in the local service area were not yet fulfilled.

She further objected to the exclusion from the parcel tax of 65 condos and houses at the base of Red Mountain. “It was blatantly unfair that these properties were excluded,” she said.

Timm explained that the area “had no more potential for development” at the time of the Ophir Reservoir, and they had already installed their own servicing at their own cost.

O’Flanagan countered with her suspicion that “three property owners passed this bylaw” who couldn’t have “controlled the vote” if 65 owners in these original Red Mountain developments had been included.

Next, O’Flanagan argued that the taxes on her property should be waived because “we have our own water, we have our own sewer, and we have a water licence for a large amount of water.”

She further argued that she felt the “units” the parcel tax is based on should be based on developable land, “not the whole lot size.”

But panel member Bill Trewhella said “I believe they take [land] out of consideration if it’s a bunch of rocky hill,” a statement supported by Kumar.

“The whole document was presented to the [B.C. Supreme Court],” Kumar said. “The method of calculation was presented to the court. The court accepted it.”

O’Flanagan disbelieved this, saying “I have never seen it,” but Kumar assured her the documents were in the possession of her lawyer.

Knox questioned O’Flanagan. “For me to make a decision, it’s up to you to tell me why [the calculation] is wrong.”

But O’Flanagan could not pinpoint what was wrong with the methodology, having not seen any documents to support Kumar’s assertion that it considered the site’s physical characteristics.

“I will now look into it to see if it is right or wrong,” she said.

O’Flanagan maintained, “we don’t like being litigious,” and said they had originally gone to court because they had been assessed nearly $20,000, in addition to $17,000 in property taxes “for raw land.” Since then, the O’Flanagans have changed their zoning so they are only paying $4,500 in additional parcel tax.

Drysdale, who chaired the committee, commented that it was “a complicated matter.” She noted it was “a decision made in the years when development was going to be rampant, and we wanted to get the costs for infrastructure.”

A choice was made to plan for development to pay for improvements in the water system, to increase its capacity with a new dam and water treatment upgrades to prepare the way for future developments.

“On the one hand,” Trewhella said, “it seems like someone’s getting a hefty bill for something they’re not using, and yet that’s what council has agreed to in their deliberations. Is there anything we can do to ease the situation?”

Drysdale hit the crux of the city’s point of view: “Are people allowed to sit on a developable piece of property and pay minimal taxes, and at some point in the future make a killing on subdivision? It’s part of the overall planning of the city.”

Knox supported this point. “We’ve seen this many times over, where people erase their property lines for 20 years. Then there’s a boom and they come and ask for the property line back so they can sell and make money — and they’ve saved taxes for years.”

“We’ve heard this multiple times before: We’ll never develop it,” Knox continued. “Next thing you know…”

He also noted, “[O’Flanagan] has it up for sale, with signs that say ‘developable property.’ That’s playing a two-sided coin in my opinion.”

Drysdale came back to the matter of paying for a utility that primarily benefits the local service area: “Out of the percentage of the cost, you’ve got federal and provincial grant money, you’ve got the city kicking in some money, but the rest is to be picked up by the people who are sitting on developable land.”