Paid parking DND property

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Hey! I drive ships, not cars.

I never had a problem parking my ship in Halifax (and come to think of it, nobody tried to make me pay for it ).

 

[c_canuk]

DAOD 1004-1

from the reference:

"Employer Responsibility

4.5 Worker parking is generally not a DSP requirement. Charges for worker parking provided by the DND and the CF must be set at the fair market value (see section 6). Should there be a taxable benefit, the DND and the CF must ensure the benefit is reported in accordance with federal and provincial income tax legislation. Worker parking may only be provided if it is consistent with the principles of the responsible financial management and the sound stewardship of real property and immovables.
"
- supports annotating T4s

"6.5 DND and CF facilities have diverse and distinct characteristics, from bases and wings spanning several kilometres in rural areas, to small facilities located in urban areas such as armouries. For the purposes of establishing the list of custodial facilities to be assessed by the RPB, a defence establishment having an uninterrupted stretch of land would be considered as one facility, e.g. a base or wing, or a large installation such as a dockyard. Separate bases, stations and buildings that do not have an uninterrupted stretch of land would be considered as separate facilities. This is generally reflected in the location code in the Defence Resource Management Information System (DRMIS)."

Support that an entire base would have 1 parking rate, demolishing the "too complicated" argument for annotating T4s


There are clauses in there describing how parking may operate, emphasizing fair and equitable (no idea how selling more passes than spots fits into that) but no language requiring they develop a parking business that I can see.


You might start making an argument that under DAOD 4001-0, Management of Realty Assets, because of the vagueness of the wording you might be required to do so, however, that would apply to all crown owned parking regardless of if it's in an area where the fair market value is $0. That would be the can of worms that has all of the CF paying.

 

[Remius]

from the reference:

"Employer Responsibility

4.5 Worker parking is generally not a DSP requirement. Charges for worker parking provided by the DND and the CF must be set at the fair market value (see section 6). Should there be a taxable benefit, the DND and the CF must ensure the benefit is reported in accordance with federal and provincial income tax legislation. Worker parking may only be provided if it is consistent with the principles of the responsible financial management and the sound stewardship of real property and immovables.
"
- supports annotating T4s

"6.5 DND and CF facilities have diverse and distinct characteristics, from bases and wings spanning several kilometres in rural areas, to small facilities located in urban areas such as armouries. For the purposes of establishing the list of custodial facilities to be assessed by the RPB, a defence establishment having an uninterrupted stretch of land would be considered as one facility, e.g. a base or wing, or a large installation such as a dockyard. Separate bases, stations and buildings that do not have an uninterrupted stretch of land would be considered as separate facilities. This is generally reflected in the location code in the Defence Resource Management Information System (DRMIS)."

Support that an entire base would have 1 parking rate, demolishing the "too complicated" argument for annotating T4s


There are clauses in there describing how parking may operate, emphasizing fair and equitable (no idea how selling more passes than spots fits into that) but no language requiring they develop a parking business that I can see.


You might start making an argument that under DAOD 4001-0, Management of Realty Assets, because of the vagueness of the wording you might be required to do so, however, that would apply to all crown owned parking regardless of if it's in an area where the fair market value is $0. That would be the can of worms that has all of the CF paying.

Section 8 describes how they can "create a parking business". 

Also see all the links below that point to acts, laws and references as to how fair market value principles are applied.  among many other things.

In your argument you seem to also ignore this:

worker parking is parking that may be made available by the DND and the CF to (the word may, not must)

and this

Worker parking is generally not a DSP requirement

 

[c_canuk]

No argument, I agreed they can under the ref, but my point is that it doesn't require it, which is what my original request was.

according to the ref,

DND is not required to provide parking. But if they do, and it's free parking, they must annotate T4s.

but conversely

DND is not required to provide parking. But if they do, and it's Pay parking, they must do it as laid out in the document.

My argument, as well as other's, is that they unnecessarily went for the more complicated solution that affects the troops the most.

I also don't believe that once Halifax is stabilized they won't start finding ways to push this elsewhere once the revenue (not profit because I doubt there will be any) numbers start showing up on budgets.

EDIT:

on re reading your post, you seem to think I'm arguing that DND must provide parking, and/or cannot charge for parking. I'm not. I have not and I will not. I've only argued:

1. that they have in the past
2. that free parking was noted as a taxable benifit by CRA
3. that benefit was revoked
4. there is no regulation saying they had to revoke it
5. there is no regulation requiring they charge for parking as the only option, there are alternatives that are better financially for the organization, imo, and for the welfare of the troops.

at no time did I ever say DND was required to provide it. I did say not providing it will create logistical problems, but I did not say they were required to.

 

[exgunnertdo]

6. Parking Charges and Fair Market Value
Parking Charges
6.1 Charges for worker parking provided by the DND and the CF must be set at the fair market value for all users. For parking under the control of the DND and the CF, the local parking authority must implement charges at the fair market value as soon as possible, while providing a 30-day notice to workers of any adjustment to the charges.

Reduced Parking Charges
6.2 Only DSISSS may authorize, on behalf of the DM, parking charges that differ from the fair market value. Parking charged at less than fair market value may result in a taxable benefit being reported. Approval must be obtained from DSISSS through the chain of command.

(emphasis mine)

I read that as - DND must charge for parking, based on fair market value. DSISSS can authorize a lower than fair market value charge (lower being down to "no charge") which may create a taxable benefit.

Shilo, Pet, Wainwright, etc - fair market value is 0
Downtown Ottawa - fair market value is $75/month (or whatever)

I don't see that the base commander has much choice? Other than to ask DSISSS for authorization to lower the charge. No idea if Ottawa is ever open to such requests.

 

[c_canuk]

I suppose that's the question, was a request sent in and if so was it denied?

If it was denied, then I would conceed the point that it was required.

 

[Remius]

No argument, I agreed they can under the ref, but my point is that it doesn't require it, which is what my original request was.

according to the ref,

DND is not required to provide parking. But if they do, and it's free parking, they must annotate T4s.

but conversely

DND is not required to provide parking. But if they do, and it's Pay parking, they must do it as laid out in the document.

My argument, as well as other's, is that they unnecessarily went for the more complicated solution that affects the troops the most.

I also don't believe that once Halifax is stabilized they won't start finding ways to push this elsewhere once the revenue (not profit because I doubt there will be any) numbers start showing up on budgets.

EDIT:

on re reading your post, you seem to think I'm arguing that DND must provide parking, and/or cannot charge for parking. I'm not. I have not and I will not. I've only argued:

1. that they have in the past
2. that free parking was noted as a taxable benifit by CRA
3. that benefit was revoked
4. there is no regulation saying they had to revoke it
5. there is no regulation requiring they charge for parking as the only option, there are alternatives that are better financially for the organization, imo, and for the welfare of the troops.

at no time did I ever say DND was required to provide it. I did say not providing it will create logistical problems, but I did not say they were required to.

I'm sorry but you have lumped in parking as part of the various cuts to CF members throughout this thread.  making it akin to things like PLD and pension contributions and what not.  all things that members are entitled to and are arguably being eroded.  You are not entitled to parking so if you don't get it you haven't lost anything if you do then guess what?  It's a bonus. 

The benefit was not revoked because the benefit you were getting was ILLEGAL.

 

[c_canuk]

I can understand where you are coming from, but I get hung up on they way it's being phrased.

I don't believe it was illegal, I don't think there was an intent to defraud. An oversight certainly. Along the same grounds as the TBS ignoring the directive of yearly PLD updates.

Was it an established benefit codified in regulations, no. was it a benefit, in a literal sense? Yes, the CRA and TBS believe it was, hence their insistence that the situation be corrected.

Was there a way they could have met the requirements without making the members pay, yes. Was it pursued? I don't know.

It's all down to a single unknowable point, hopefully this situation won't expand.

You know what, it's Friday and sunny out, I'm going to go find something to do outside.

I withdraw all arguments and walk away from this one.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I sometimes wonder when I visit this forum whether we are a military or a congregation of lawyers?  This thread makes me feel like I'm talking to my girlfriend and her friends (they are all in law school).  Time to extract myself and go be a dumb jock again!  #brockvillerifleshockeytourney

 

[Eye In The Sky]

OK! OK! OK!

We get it!

Military parking in Halifax is a disaster. It was a disaster when I joined in 1975 … and its still a disaster today.
Nobody was satisfied with the solutions in 1975 … and nobody is satisfied with the solutions today.
People thought the system was unfair in 1975 … and people think its unfair today.

Can somebody shoot this thread and put it out of its misery … Please!!!!

I always thought they should have put in a parkade when they knocked down the old C & POs mess on Stad.  That wouldhave helped.

 

[kratz]

Hey! I drive ships, not cars.

I never had a problem parking my ship in Halifax (and come to think of it, nobody tried to make me pay for it ).

Are you listening good idea fariries?  :stirpot:

 

[George Wallace]

Are you listening good idea fariries?  :stirpot:

Automobiles and Sea Water don't mix well.

 

[Teager]

Automobiles and Sea Water don't mix well.

 

[George Wallace]

;D

This would be better; but more in line with an Army base than Navy:

http://army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63462.0;attach=47984

 

[Kat Stevens]

Paying to park on base.  What's next, pay toilets? Coin op bicycle racks? Next thing troops will have to pay for transport to the field.

 

[orca73]

;D

This would be better; but more in line with an Army base than Navy:

http://army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63462.0;attach=47984

Well that is one way of avoiding parking fees. But berthing fees might be more expensive.

 

[jollyjacktar]

:tsktsk: :clubinhand: 

Enough of that now.  "They" might be listening and trying to figure out how to make it a taxable benefit.  Wouldn't want to run risk of taking business from pay toilets and pay bike racks out there...

 

[kratz]

Paying to park on base.  What's next, pay toilets? Coin op bicycle racks? Next thing troops will have to pay for transport to the field.

Kat, I think you just got a whole HQ promotion points with all those good idea fairy ideas.    :worms:

 

[dapaterson]

Paying to park on base.  What's next, pay toilets? Coin op bicycle racks? Next thing troops will have to pay for transport to the field.

Only on some of the urban bases.  So there's at least one advantage to being posted to Shilo or Dundurn: free parking.

 

[NavyShooter]

I've actually pondered taking my kayak to the ship on a nice warm day during the summer....I wonder what they'd do?