Don’t believe N. Cowichan couldn’t have gotten money for something else
Re: “Defending local government”, (Citizen, March 16).
I was not in favour of the building of the pool because of a weak business case and a very low approval rating for the project. An equitable regional funding formula was never firmly established so the residents/taxpayers of North Cowichan took on the greatest financial risks of all the areas of the region. Subsequently the attempt to set up appropriate two-tier user fees failed miserably, now there is a one-tier fee.
My wife and I use the pool periodically and more frequently when the grandchildren come to visit. I think the pool is an excellent regional facility. However, because of the reluctance of regional supporters for equitable financial contribution from all taxpayers, the Aquatic Centre has been and continues to bleed money. From the first year of operation, the Aquatic Centre’s annual expenses have been much greater than the revenue it takes in. So to make up the shortfall, our local government just adds to the tax base.
There is no will nor motivation for our local government to bring the expenses into line with revenues. However, could it be that the application to the gas tax for a $2.4 million refit, because of the high demand for facilities, is a first step? Did our local government base the request on the premise that spending $2.4 to refit the facilities (that are in such high demand) would grow the revenue stream and perhaps minimize expenses, which may in turn help balance the Aquatic Centre’s books? Time will only tell.
North Cowichan held a series of Town Hall Budget Planning sessions for the taxpayers to suggest 10 priorities for spending. Something your paper supported whole heartedly. The taxpayers responded and the top five priorities were: 1. “keeping our water safe and clean”; 2. “infrastructure maintenance (roads etc.)”; 3. “public safety”; 4. “building active transportation…”; 5. “affordable housing”; with “recreation facilities” coming in at No. 10.
So how in the world did the results of taxpayer input lead the municipality to develop an application to the gas tax for funding for the very last priority? As you stated in your article, “gas tax money can only be used in very specific areas…” why not consider the application for a project within any of the top five priorities at least? As you stated “It is awarded for specific projects that fit the provincial criteria.” I cannot believe that there is not a viable project that fits the provincial criteria in these top five priorities.
While I understand your notion of “defending local government”, I believe that holding local government accountable for the ways they spend the taxpayers’ money is far, far more important.
Greg Gerbis
Duncan