CITY OF QUESNEL

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

Monday, January 26, 2004

Mayor’s Statement Regarding Quality Services for Sub-Regional Recreation

______________________________________________________________________________

QUESNEL, B. C. – At a Special Meeting of Quesnel City Council on January 26, 2004, Mayor Nate Bello spoke on the reason Council has rejected the CRD’s demand for City approval of a by-law to cement a funding arrangement for the future of recreation.  His comments were as follows:

Council is strong in its resolve to bring back a quality facility backed by adequate operational funding.  At present, without an increase in funding due to increased labour and utility costs, we are being handcuffed in this pursuit.  The Cariboo Regional District, despite our pleas and our desire to work with them, has decided to keep the status quo.  This is untenable.

First, let’s look at a little bit of history.  For the last number of years the CRD has been asking for parity between their residential taxpayer and ours.  We have resisted this because we pay the requisition based on General Municipal assessment.  We pay our bill and the CRD pays theirs.  We don’t ask them how they raise their portion, respecting their right over their tax system.  We asked for the same respect.

But let’s look at the issue a bit more in depth.  Is this a real issue?  On the surface, I can see how it looks.  On one side of the road, a property owner sees a tax statement that asks for $70 per $100,000 home and on the other side, the statement requires $140 for the same value of home.  But these tax statements don’t give a real picture.  The city taxpayer also pays for other recreational services used by all the citizens of the North Cariboo.  What about the Riverfront Trail, Lebourdais Park, the new Soccer field, West Fraser Timber Park and other facilities?  When it comes to questions of equity, these costs must be taken into account.  Yes, we have industrial taxation but we also have roads, police, and some other infrastructure for which the city taxpayer pays.

If we want to talk about real issues, what about the fact that despite paying 70% of the costs, the CRD has the entire say in the budget, a budget that has not increased in any real way despite increased cost pressures.  Why not?  The only reason is that the CRD has been totally focused on their parity issue and would not pay for a quality facility.  Usage between city and rural residents is roughly 50-50 and yet, the city pays 70%.  In addition, as I stated, the city pays for the additional recreational services.  I ask you, what is the real equity issue?

For all of the above reasons, the city asked the province for a sub-regional recreation service review.  Our purpose was to review the scope of service, to propose a balanced approach to financing and look to creating more efficiencies in the operation.

While this review is on-going, decisions had to be made concerning the 2004 budget.  Unfortunately, the two issues became intertwined.  Council would have liked to see a budget passed for this year and then return to the service review table.

We actually tried to accede to the CRD’s request for parity despite the sound reasons I’ve already mentioned.  Our proposal was as follows:  equal payment for all residents based on our tax system with the extra premium going into a city reserve for future recreational capital projects.

The CRD even refused this offer.  After years of their complaining about parity, we agreed to meeting their concern.  However, they wanted a CRD by-law based on a tax scheme that would tie our hands and circumvent the service review process.

Therefore we have not achieved an agreement.  So what now?

Well, I can tell what we’re not going to do.  We are not going to see the City blamed for the inconsistent funding from an organization that only pays 30% of the bill.

Here’s what we are going to do.  We are going to push for adequate funding from the CRD to maintain quality service.  We are going to continue the service review.  It’s the only way to achieve a long-term solution that will include:  a new funding arrangement, a new vision for the scope of recreation, and the pursuit of operational efficiencies.

Also, we will enter into discussion with our unions on how to meet the constraints of an unreasonable budget.  Last year, our management was able to achieve some cost savings, while continuing to deliver exemplary service.  The results of the recent citizen telephone survey confirmed the public’s wide appreciation for the service.  The same spirit of cooperation will be needed this year if we are to get by with inadequate funding.

Finally, we will return to the service review table and get a fair deal for the city’s taxpayers and, we believe, the community as a whole.  One option that the City may need to consider, albeit reluctantly, is to withdraw from the service altogether and establish a City based system.  Our staff will be examining this option in detail over the coming months.  It’s not something we want to do, but it is something we may have to do.

In summation, the people of Quesnel can rest assured that Council will work hard to ensure quality recreation services.