TransLink Board of Directors
Re: Funding for Lower Mainland Improvements

Via Facsimile 604-453-4633


Dear Directors:

By way of introduction, as B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I represent approximately 11,000 supporters of the Federation across B.C., about half of those in the lower mainland. The Federation is supported solely by their free-will donations that are not tax deductible. They give to the organization in order to promote accountability in government, and the responsible and efficient use of tax dollars.

On their behalf then, I bring the following to your attention as regards funding for lower mainland transit and road improvements.

The member cities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District spend, annually, over $2 billion in operating and capital expenditures. Tax revenue from a proposed auto tax is forecast at $95.4 million in 2002, (the first full year of collection). A 4.6 percent diversion in existing spending could make the auto tax unnecessary.

Most families could find four or five percent in their own budgets, and in fact - most have done at least that as taxes rose significantly over the past three decades. Disposable income in British Columbia has dropped over the 1990s and an additional tax, either in the form of an auto tax of $75 per vehicle on average ($190 for commercial vehicles) would be a hardship. It would also be unfair given the amount of taxes already paid to federal, provincial, and municipal governments.

Given that hardship, it is more than reasonable to ask civic politicians to find budget room to avoid another tax - this time on drivers. The options provided by TransLink thus far do not include the option of diverting money from existing greater Vancouver municipal budgets. Why

In addition, while TransLink cannot force the hand of the provincial or federal government, it is an election year. TransLink and its directors should not underestimate their ability to sway public opinion to demand that those senior levels of government transfer gas tax room to TransLink (over and above what the Province of British Columbia already transfers and plans to transfer.)

According to information provided by TransLink itself, if federal and provincial governments each transferred 1.5 cents of their existing fuel tax 'room,' $65 million would be available for greater Vancouver road and transit improvements - about two-thirds of what TransLink wants from an auto tax. That would mean that TransLink would only have to find $30 million in revenues to negate any need for a new auto tax. A mere 1.5 % diversion in existing civic budgets in greater Vancouver could provide that $30 million.

If TransLink insists on a new tax worth $95 million in 2002- voters should have the final word. In addition, by 2004, TransLink will collect and spend over $800 million annually - more than any one city in greater Vancouver. Voters must also have a direct say in who spends that much money and as such regular elections are in order. As such, the Federation's position is that there should be a referendum on any new auto tax, and regular TransLink elections should occur concurrent with municipal elections. I am sure TransLink wants to ensure that its decisions are as democratic as possible.

There is only one taxpayer, and whether the tax dollars are paid to TransLink, the provincial or federal governments, or their local city, taxpayers in the lower mainland cannot afford another tax and should not be asked for more. A new tax is especially odious when diversions within existing within greater Vancouver budgets - without a property tax increase - have not even been looked at as an option by the GVRD, TransLink, or municipal politicians.

A 1.5% or 4.6% diversion from existing city budgets is not too much to consider, and it is precisely what should be considered before any imposition of a new tax on lower mainland drivers.


Sincerely,


Mark Milke

British Columbia Director
Canadian Taxpayers Federation