CITY and CRD at ODDS

or... TIT for TAT

 The City has been unhappy with the CRD since the CRD pulled out of moving the library to PSL.  What the City forgets is that the CRD agreed to move the library to the 3^rd floor but…the City could not accommodate that floor so…the plan for the library was moved to the 5^th floor, which is not big enough.  The library task force, which was actually chaired by Councillor Dalton Hooker recommended against the 5th floor, not only because it wasn't big enough, but also because it was not "ground level", as required by the task force. What the City also fails to comprehend is that the public does not want the library in PSL, on any floor.  Even if Gold’s Gym was to vacate there is no parking for library patrons and definitely no parking for the handicapped due to the hills around the building.

So…the City retaliated by calling for a review of sub regional and library services, which upset the CRD.  The CRD then decided to return fire with their requirement for equal taxation of recreation services.  Due to the City’s industrial tax base, the residents of the CRD pay more on their property taxes for their contribution to sub-regional recreation than the City residents.  The CRD demanded, as a condition of their continued involvement, that the City increase their homeowner recreation taxation to the CRD level and…the City agreed as long as the new tax dollars went into a City-held fund for future buildings. The CRD said no!

This issue is clearly complex and both sides are now deeply entrenched in their own positions. The City claims it pays 70% of the sub-regional recreation budget and additionally provides a variety of City only facilities and services such as soccer fields, parks, trails, Shiraoi House, SPCA, etc for the benefit and enjoyment of all local residents without any contribution from the CRD. One further disparity (not enunciated by the Mayor) is that rural residents often enjoy substantially lower land assessments based on size of property than their in City counterparts and in some cases operate agri-businesses and other business ventures on the same property. In any event the City claims that the CRD controls the sub-regional recreation budget and refuses to consider taxation increases for rural residents in spite of obvious cost increases, placing substantial strain on the sub-regional recreation budget.

The situation, in our opinion, is the result of entrenched attitudes on both sides of the fence, and the only ones to lose are the taxpayers as sub-regional facilities degrade and service levels are reduced because two levels of government are unable to find an appropriate resolution or to convince each other of the merits of their position.

A possible solution to all this expense and confusion would be to have only one governing body, hence one tax formula, for the whole area.  Lets work on making this change.  Possibly, the first step might be a public forum followed by some sort of facilitated conflict resolution process. We can hope that city and rural taxpayers and their kids won't be held political pawns for too long...