Facts encourage reality check of one per cent La Peche tax hike


by admin on February 2, 2011

The Editor,

It must be stated that the tax rate has not increased one per cent as the La Peche mayor stated in the Low Down (Jan. 12 edition). A detailed analysis of resolution 10-573 for the 2011 budget is interesting when we compare it with resolution 10-001 of the 2010 budget. The facts give us a different perspective.

Here’s a breakdown on taxation rates:

Municipal portion

  • General tax (residential and agricultural): 0,5011 (2010); 0,5541 (2011); variation: 9.6 per cent;
  • Non-residential property: 0,7207 (2010); 0,7759 (2011); variation: 7.1 per cent;
  • Property of six units or more: 0,6475(2010); 0,7023 (2011); variation: 7.8 per cent.

MRC portion

  • Tax: 0,2309 (2010); 0,1852 (2011); variation: -24.7 per cent;
  • MRC – General expenses: 0,0863 (2010); 0,0697 (2011); variation: -23.8 per cent;
  • Regional police and municipal court: 0,1446 (2010); 0,1155 (2011); variation: – 25.2 per cent;
  • Total tax rate residential: 0,7320 (2010); 0,7393 (2011); variation: 1.0 per cent;
  • Garbage tax – residential: $183 (2010); $195 (2011); variation: 6.2 per cent;
  • One-time fee for purchase of recycling bins (during four years, end 2010): $15 (2010); $0 (2011);
  • Recreation tax (arena) by residence: $40 (2010); $40 (2011); variation: 0 per cent.

Additional Information:

  • Total projected tax revenue: $889,727,203 (2010); $ 907,365,703 (2011); variation: 1.9 per cent;
  • Total municipal expenses: $10,493,568 (2010); $10, 881,513 (2011); variation: 3.6 per cent.

It must be noted that the tax rate for the garbage collection has actually increased 6.2 per cent. The “reduction” of $3 is not accurate because the purchase of recycling bins is not a recurring cost. The true increase to the garbage tax is $12 by home.

It is very clear that the municipal tax rate has increased 9.6 per cent per residence or registered agricultural property; a non-residential property has increased by 7.1 per cent and a building of six or more units has increased by 7.8 per cent.

The MRC tax rate has decreased 24.7 per cent. That is the reason the general tax hike is not 1 per cent per residence. That is due to timing and circumstance.

On the contrary, one needs to take a hard look at why the general tax rate is being increased out of proportion for the kinds of services this municipality manages.

Moreover, it should also be pointed out that the increase in expenses of 3.6 per cent is not covered as they pretend by the overall growth in taxable properties (of 1.9 per cent), which is due in large part to new construction between 2010 and 2011.

All this needs to be taken into consideration when we talk about projects and development. Art Mantell’s editorial, “Contemplate future after you scan the past” (Jan. 12 edition), makes much more sense.

Thierry Boyer

Wakefield, Quebec