"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Friday, 19 April 2013

Consider This

The post about a town agreement with St. Andrew's College for deferment of Development Charges (DC's) was a lot of work to write. I had weasel wording of the Strategic plan that allows the town to vary principles. I also had tables of figures. It kept coming out in a wall of words. After trying a number of times to change that I decided to leave it until this morning and touch a few buttons. I'm always leary about doing that in case I lose the whole thing. Well guess what. I arose this morning with the intent of discovering the abracadabra. I lost the whole thing. Now I have to start again.

There was considerable interest in the post and a number of comments. It just occurred to me I might have lost them as well. Oh well...stuff happens.

The gist of it is, staff are recommending an agreement be extended that provides for deferral of Development Charges for construction at St. Andrew's College. The original agreement was signed in 2002. New construction is proposed.

No-one on the current Council can speak to the rationale for the agreement. It came as a surprise. I am not aware of another. The deferment is until such time as use of the property is changed or the property is sold. There is a law that allows the municipality to make such an agreement. I did not know that either. The subject has never come up.

On the other hand, during the last term, collecting development charges from the Separate School Board for the construction of St. Max High School on Wellington Street was an issue. The Board pointed out no other municipality charges school boards for DC's. Richmond Hill's DC Bylaw excludes school boards and other public entities. The Town refused to relent. There was at least one Councillor who must have known about the agreement with St. Andrew's.

The Board appealed the town's decision. Not on collection of DC's but on the amount. They argued the town had over-valued the property therefore the amount required to be paid was too high. The town was taking cash in lieu of parks.

The Board had legal counsel. The town retained legal counsel and off we went to the OMB, jointly spending more of the taxpayers' hard earned dollars. The Town lost the argument. We had to return money AND pay the legal fee.

That was another one of those times when I was not in accord with the majority of a Council decision.

Taking DC's from another tax supported body made no sense to me. The town's decision with the Separate School board was relevant to the discussion on deferment of DC's for St Andrew's College. Montessori Schools pay DC's. They too are private schools.

The decision was not to recommend the agreement with St.Andrew's College be extended. It will come forward next Tuesday for ratification.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

This discussion was really interesting & you were cooking ! Well done. We will watch Tuesday to see if there is any slippage although Council was pretty firm. The only proponent seemed to be the Mayor. No ?

Anonymous said...

Good Grief. The Agenda is up. It is humungous.

Anonymous said...

Finally, something we can agree upon!

Anonymous said...

Development charges for exisiting facilities that are expanding is underhanded tax grabbing.

I think back to the Canadian Tire store when they moved from across the street. They got approval for a particular sized building (we don't want to go too big). A few years later, they are building an extension. The Town double dips on the development charge. There was no increase in the amount of residents that would use Town services (supposedly one of the reasons for DCs).

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Evelyn. Keep well.

Anonymous said...

Like the fees at St. Andrews have not gone up since original temporary agreements were made? Check out what they charge per year & I'm not even talking about the boarding costs.

Anonymous said...

nice try, 3:38 PM, but it won't fly. Homeowners have to pay for upgrades. We added a sun porch & helped one neighbour fence his yard for his dog. Paid for permits & then the taxes were adjusted as bigger houses were popping up. There has been no increase in the # of residents. Actually a decrease as one has moved on. We all have to pay the freight.

Anonymous said...

Now, *this* is a legitimate target for reverse snobbery.

Anonymous said...

At $30,640 per year (plus exhorbitant "Other required fees") St. Andrews can bite the bullet. I'm sorry, but people attending this school are not your average homeowner in Aurora.

Check out the fees here: http://www.sac.on.ca/admission/tuition-fees/index.aspx

They are also currently 80% towards the $37 million for a building campaign. I wonder if in that $37 million St. Andrews' had included development charge fees etc. Being a private school they would have done their homework and hired their own consultants to flush out the true costing.

I think the Town could be taken to the cleaners on this one while the school, dressed in tails, laughs all the way to the bank.

Anonymous said...

SAC has an Old Boys Alumni. Like most private schools, they go after the alums until they are in the ground, sometimes beyond in the case of wills. This is not a struggling outfit by any stretch of the imagination.

Anonymous said...

Man, it sure would be refreshing to hear about money flowing into Aurora's bank account instead of these flea-brained schemes and motions to remove it or prevent it from flowing. Someone is seriously over-estimating tax-payers' level of tolerance.

Anonymous said...

Indeed 12:31 plenty of circular discussion about "flea-brained schemes" week in and week out. Core business and value for the taxpayer are often missing. Certainly, my level of tolerance is being tested. I find myself asking why couldn't 4 councillors and a Mayor do the work? Oh no, too much work would be the claim - or would there be less work if certain councillors were given an early retirement?

Anonymous said...

Early retirement, 4:52 PM? How about one long past due?

Anonymous said...

Nice try 7:00pm...

I am not talking about permits. DCs are supposed to pay for Town services when a new "Development" is done. This is not a development nor is it going to increase a reliance on Town services. Quite the opposite.

Let them pay the permit fees but stop the using of DCs as what they were not meant to do.

Anonymous said...

5:26 PM
You are just so jealous.

Anonymous said...

I might be, 2:23 PM, if I was the failed council candidate that you've imagined me to be...