Lyonel Doherty
Times-Chronicle
A lengthy debate about property tax penalties shows that the Town of Oliver is struggling with finding a balance between compassion and building revenue.
Council was initially presented with a staff recommendation that it adopt a property tax due date of July 2 with a 10 per cent non-payment penalty applied July 3. However, the 10 per cent was quickly changed to a one per cent penalty.
Coun. Larry Schwartzenberger said this gives people who are suffering COVID setbacks a “little break.”
He also pointed out the revenue loss is covered under the government’s COVID relief fund.
Chief Financial Officer Doug Leahy said the town received $1.5 million in relief funds and has approximately $950,000 left.
The motion was then changed to add an additional four per cent payment applied Oct. 1.
Coun. Dave Mattes cautioned council that at some point they will have to “get back to normal” by charging taxpayers the normal rates.
“Somethere along the line we’re going to hit a wall.”
Coun. Petra Veintimilla said everyone was “Godsmacked” with the new reality that COVID presented.
“There are many in our community who are struggling even more than last year,” she said.
However, Veintimilla said she would like to see them return to the 10 per cent penalty by the end of the year.
Leahy informed council that they saw “strong payment” from residents on July 2, noting that approximately 87 per cent of the total tax levy was collected on that date.
Leahy said the province deferred school taxes during the pandemic, which helped the town immensely. However, if they are not deferred this year, the town may have to approve a borrowing bylaw, he pointed out,
Coun. Aimee Grice likened the motion to a “small olive branch” to taxpayers, noting a lot of people are still suffering financially.
But Mattes said if they are offering this olive branch, they should offer it to everyone, not just those who are late in paying their taxes. He stated he would not be supporting the motion.
Mayor Martin Johansen said he would support the motion if the one per cent at the beginning was changed to three or four per cent.
“We need to make sure we have enough cash flow to be able to make remittances when they are due.”
The motion was defeated with Mattes, Veintimilla and Johansen opposed.
Veintimilla suggested a one per cent non-payment penalty applied July 3 and an additional nine per cent applied Oct. 1.
But Mattes said it’s not a matter of penalty, it’s a matter of cash flow.
“By having a one per cent penalty at the beginning won’t make them (taxpayers) pay any quicker.”
Mattes said this won’t create a greater cash flow than the previous motion.
By the end of the discussion, council agreed to postpone the motion to the Feb. 22 meeting.
