PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES - Proposed Changes to NCRP Taxation Boundary

(NOTE: Letters received from residents on the proposed changes to the NCRP Taxation Boundary are posted on this blog below the summaries of the 2 meetings held in Area B)

Proposed Changes – North Cariboo Recreation & Parks Taxation Boundary

On Thursday, May 24^th and Monday, May 28^th, I attended public meetings at Bouchie Lake Hall and the new Parkland Community Centre (in Parkland School) respectively.  These meetings were set up as part of the public consultation process to inform residents of the proposed expansion area process.  It was an opportunity for residents to ask questions, express their concerns and opinions, and learn more about how some recreational opportunities and /or facilities are funded through the North Cariboo Recreation & Parks Taxation service function.

Darron Campbell, Manager of Community Services, Recreation & Airports (dcampbell@cariboord.bc.ca) was at both meetings to present to residents the proposed change to the North Cariboo Recreation & Parks (NCRP) service taxation boundary.  Information as to why the Cariboo Regional District is proposing this boundary change can be found on http://www.cariboord.bc.ca  There is a link located along the right hand side of the main website page which looks like this… 

Darron's presentation focused on an overview of the recreation taxation function, the reason why the boundary expansion was being proposed, and included a discussion on the FAQ's / Frequently Asked Questions which can also be viewed via the link provided above.  In a nutshell, the NCRP service function is shared between the Cariboo Regional District and City of Quesnel.  In terms of taxation dollars from the 2 jurisdictions for 2012, the CRD contributes $1,085,083.00 to the function whereas the City of Quesnel contributes $2,016,350.00.  The total taxes collected for this function in 2012 will be $3,101,433.00.   The existing boundary is 30 years old and does not reflect the new subdivisions and development that have occurred at the edge of the boundary.  The proposal is to expand the boundary to include an additional 728 parcels of land so that the NCRP boundary will match the boundaries of other Regional District services more recently established (North Cariboo HandyDart and local fire protection).  The property parcel breakdown by Electoral Area, within the proposed expansion area, is as follows:

Electoral Area A:    78    (10.7%)
Electoral Area B:    483  (66.3%)

Electoral Area C:    134  (18.4%)

Electoral Area I:      33    (4.6%)

TOTAL:                      728  (100%)

Residential property owners currently within the boundary pay for 2012 a residential tax rate of $131 / $100,000.00 of the assessed value of land and improvements.  This tax rate is the same regardless of whether the property is within the CRD or the City of Quesnel.  Currently, the CRD has a contract with the City of Quesnel to manage the function.  The function supports sub-regional recreation services including:

Quesnel & District Arts & Recreation Centre - programs and facilities

Twin Arenas
Alex Fraser Park -  $46,367
West Fraser Timber Park

Riverfront Trail
Hydraulic Road Toilet - $2300
New Bike Park (behind Quesnel Arts & Recreation Centre) - $3000
Pioneer Park (on Dragon Lake)

Bouchie Lake Hall & Recreation Grounds (managed by the Bouchie Lake Recreation Commission) - $45,758 operating / $10,000 capital

Kostas Cove on Ten Mile Lake and the Parkland Community Centre (managed by Parkland Recreation Commission) - $31,650 operating / $17,500 capital
Barlow Creek Hall & Ranger Park Ball Fields - $15,173 operating / $11,969 capitol

For additional information on the proposed expansion area, please check out the link above to the CRD website, contact myself, Directors Massier,  Director Armstrong, Director Glassford or Darron Campbell.

Below is a summary of the comments and concerns that arose at the 2 meetings within Area B:

BOUCHIE LAKE HALL OPEN HOUSE - Thursday, May 24th, 5-8 pm

# Residents in attendance: 9 (including me) - of which 5 currently pay the NCRP tax and 4 do not

Comments in point form:
- NCRP taxation funds collected do not stay in the Electoral Area to support rural recreational services;

- people outside of the existing boundary did not have the opportunity to vote in the multi-centre referendum;
- taxes are already too high for the services received;
- rural residents don't use all the recreational services;
- recreation priorties need to be set so they are tied directly to the needs of the electoral areas:

- the proposed multi-centre is detrimental to our rural areas; the multi-centre pre tax ($300,000 for 2012) is unfair as people are paying tax on something that may never come;
- timing with the impending shortfall in timber fibre is a concern;
- cheaper to purchase a Recreation Pass ($79.00 / year for an individual; $131 / year for a family) than it would be to pay sub-regional recreation taxes;
- additional funds received should be allocated to our community's recreational resources without asking the Joint Planning committee;
- funds for recreation collected rurally needs to stay in the Electoral Areas; too much of our money going into the city of Quesnel;
- more education needs to be provided to rural residents about the NCRP service taxation function and funding formula;
- map and boundary change should be deferred until after the multi-centre referendum expires in Nov. 2013;

PARKLAND COMMUNITY CENTRE OPEN HOUSE - Monday, May 28th, 5-8 pm

# Residents in attendance: 16 (including me) - of which 15 currently  do not contribute to the NCRP taxation function

Comments in point form:

- most Recreation money collected through taxation goes to facilities / services in the City of Quesnel:
- $79.00 / year Recreation Pass is cheaper to purchase than paying the subregional tax rate;
- thought needs to be given to have a non-resident Recreation pass is the recreation pass is no longer needed;
- when will they stop collecting money for the multi-centre?;
- my family has used the recreation facilities in Quesnel but we have an issue with the referendum for the multi-centre in that we were not provided with a vote;
- the inclusion of additional properties needs to go to referendum;
- don't finalise the boundary expansion until after the referendum for the multi-centre expires (Nov., 2013);
- more opportunity for public consultation is required pripr to any decisions being made;
- City of Quesnel always looking for more money out of the CRD;
- why is that the Recreation Tax is not paid by all Northern Electoral Area residents?;
- most people in our area do not use the Arts & Recreation Centre; it does not make sense to increase taxes for something we don't use;
- the multi-centre deadline is looming; seems it is directly linked with the proposed expansion;
- small turn out of meeting tonight is not a reflection of interest; farmers are busy;
- deal with multi-centre referendum first and then address expansion area question;
- taxes will increase by 30% but we don't get a 30% increase in services;
- important to maintain services and budgets; if the tax base increases, the additional monies received should go towards reducing taxes;
- user pay system; rural community residents don't use facilities in Quesnel regularly; when they do... they are happy to pay for the use;
- if proposed new boundary is accepted, we need a referendum on any major decisions made todate (i.e. the multi-centre):
- if the tax catchment area proceeds, we need a vote;
- good part of living out of town is lower taxes;
- we don't like paying for something they did not have a chance to vote on (e.g. multi-centre);
- mail out notification of these meetings received late by residents (1 resident stated they live in the Bouchie Lake area but only received the notification today; as such they missed the meeting at Bouchie Lake Hall); not everyone has access to social media, news papers, email, etc.; not everyone listens to the local radio;
- there is interest in another Area B meeting on this topic;
- if the CRD wishes to move the recreation boundary, then residents within the expansion area should have a vote on the multi-centre referendum;
- we are happy with the way things are now;
- families that went to Kostas Cove were asked to leave because they don't pay into the taxation base that supports the cove; was not even aware of the new Parkland Community Centre; don't pay attention to issues that don't impact them;
- people on the lake feel they own Kostas Cove;
- happy to pay for what we use (user pay system):
- did not know that the Parkland Community Centre was here; it is not fair to have to pay for something we don't pay attention to as it does not impact us:
- the newspaper notification for the meetings was very vague;
- people don't need a fancy place to ride a horse or recreate; if we do, we'll pay for it;
- difficult for people on a fixed income to come up with extra money for the taxes should the expansion boundary proceeds; 

Public Open House - Parkland Community Centre

ALL RESIDENTS ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE UPCOMING MEETINGS AT BARLOW CREEK HALL AND THE WEST FRASER FIRE HALL

Wed., May 30th, 5-8 pm - Barlow Creek Hall
Tues., June 5th, 5-8 pm, West Fraser Fire Hall

_______________________________________________________

Letter received from a Resident in the 10 Mile Lake area (May 20, 2012)

Good day Direct Dixon-Warren,

As a taxpaying resident who lives just OUTSIDE the recreational taxation boundary I will be directly affected by this proposed change.   Should this move ahead, my property taxes will increase over $400 per year.   This email, along with the scheduled open houses, have come to me with over a year to plan for the potential proposed tax increase for 2013    If I cannot figure out how to cover the approximately $35 per month of extra tax potentially coming then I had better put my place up for sale.

With that I COMPLETELY and WHOLEHEARTEDLY support this change to the recreational taxation boundaries.   Let’s get on with it.

I hope that you as our director will show SUPPORT for this and will vote YES when it’s your turn to raise your hand.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Letter received from a Resident in the 10 Mile Lake area (May 29, 2012)
Re Proposed Changes – North Cariboo Recreation & Parks Taxation Boundary

We object to the proposed tax boundary expansion and proposed property tax increase of  $131 per $100,000 assessed value, as most of the money is designated to support the operation, maintenance, upgrading, and expansion of the Arts and Recreation Centre and the Twin Arenas in an urban location in Quesnel.  The proposed tax is a heavy and unfair burden to people like us, who are living quite some distance away in a rural setting. The record will show that we simply do not use the recreational facilities situated in Quesnel.

We are simply too far away to benefit from what is offered at the Quesnel recreation facilities. Travel on rural roads to attend programs is not practical, and often dangerous in winter. It would be a different matter if we could travel to the facilities on city roads, or if public transportation would be available.

The argument that this tax increase is partly justified by the establishment of the Parkland Community Centre is pretty weak, as the main driving force for establishing the centre at a part of the school building really is to help prevent the closing of the school, due to a declining enrollment of pupils.

Similarly, the Kostas Cove is an 80 acre parcel of Crown land that was handed over to the  CRD for $1, and the improvements to date are mostly from grants and volunteer efforts.  We are not sure if the establishment of the equestrian facility is contingent on significant public funds.

In terms of the overall North Cariboo and Quesnel proposed  recreation budget, both the Parkland  Community Centre and the Kostas Cove financial forecasts are pretty minor compared to what is envisaged for the facilities in the urban environment of Quesnel.

We also wonder why the CRD is involved to a major degree in the funding of facilities within the city of Quesnel, which are designed to serve the needs of an urban population, living in subdivisions, townhouses, and apartments in the city.

Magnus and Estelle Vinje

____________________________________________________________________________________

Letter received from a Resident of Moose Heights (May 31, 2012)

After attending the meeting last night I am even more against these changes. It does feel that the timing of the boundary changes are to get rural property owners to pay for the purposed Multi-centre (that we never got to vote on).

I was incorrect about my family having lived and ranched in this area for approximately fifty years, it is actually eighty (1932) years!  As a family we have discussed that there is a lot of properties included, in the purposed expansion,  that are in the ALR and are bound to the regulations that goes with that.  The ALR is 38 years in existence and I don’t know of any plans to change it due to age.

If the concern is about “new” sub-divisions that have developed long after the original boundaries were drawn up then why not tax just those or properties that have sub-divided and developed in the last ten or twenty years?

I these changes will not benefit me or my family and am firmly apposing the extension of the taxation boundary.

As for the future of a Multi-centre for Quesnel; I do not think it is what our community needs, I don’t support the idea of it and I certainly do not want my family to have to pay for it for the next ten to twenty years.

The information provided to us quotes the tax increase to be $131 per $100,000 but does not emphasize that number is prior to the possible $15 million dollars the CRD was approved to borrow should the Multi Centre move forward.

Last night was the first time I have ever attending the “Parkland Community Centre” and in fact did not even know it existed.  When my children were young and the community needed to meet we either used one of our homes or met in the school gymnasium. 

I don’t think that North Cariboo Recreation & Parks provides funds for anything I want or need. If I do decide to use any facilities funded by the North Cariboo Parks & Recreation, I will gladly pay a user fee rather than be taxed on it.

My family has chosen to live and raise our families outside of the city and never felt the need to have the amenities that the city provides.  Long before there was a park on Ten Mile Lake or the Cottonwood River we used those areas for swimming and recreation. In fact I would support a fee for the old Cottonwood Provincial Park, as we did use that when it existed, but that was closed many years ago.

I hope that the small turn out at the meeting is not considered as a lack of concern about the purposed changes. I know that many farmers and ranchers, that are to busy at this time of year to attend a meeting or may have dismissed the flyer as I almost did.

I hope that the board will not proceed with this proposal or at least put if off until after the deadline for the Multi Centre has passed.  If I am going to have to pay for something I should get a say in the approval.   I appreciate your taking time to consider our concerns and hope that you vote NO to the purposed boundary changes.

Sincerely;

 Resident of Moose Heights not the city of Quesnel!

____________________________________________________________________________________

Letter received from a Resident in the 10 Mile Lake area (May 30, 2012)

Dear Heloise:

As residents of the CRD's Electoral Area B fringe area we would like to give input on the proposed sub-regional recreation taxation boundary changes.

Our family has been using a variety of recreation and park services over time and we generally agree being included in the taxation for existing recreational services.

However, this is subject to the following concerns:

1) Fair treatment of households with high value properties
The fringe areas to be added include high value properties. Owners of high value properties and/or large tracts of land should not be burdened with unreasonably high taxation amounts for recreation.  The CRD should put in place the taxation limit or cap that households are required to pay.  This is an issue of fairness since families or households on high value properties don't use, as such, more services than the average family.  The cap could, for example, be set at 150% of the previous year's median average taxation per household.

2) Enlarged tax base should in turn reduce applicable tax rate 

The added taxation revenue from the new areas should be used to reduce the applicable tax rate for properties.  As a matter of principle, governments in times of economic uncertainty and adversity should reduce the tax burden on people by trimming their budgets and contain spending.  Europe's current debt troubles are a very relevant example of the hardship that follows unsustainable government spending.

3) Fair treatment of households regarding a referendum vote on mega-projects incurring significant debt As a matter of fairness the new areas to be added should not be burdened with significant debt for a mega project which they could not vote on in a referendum (unlike everybody else).    This is particularly relevant since the Multi-Centre referendum was decided on such a slim voter margin of just about 250 votes that the new areas with approximately 730 properties would cast a deciding number of votes with a potentially different outcome.

In addition, one can easily argue that this is not the time to proceed with the project and that the existing referendum time-frame should be allowed to expire. A community that is facing a shrinking economy with job losses from mill closures and an aging population on fixed income cannot, in good conscience, take on sizable debt for a new mega project at this point.  Instead, the community needs to wait until the economic fundamentals lead to sustained community growth.  The region's economic issues and their impact towards a declining tax base have already been correctly identified in the CRD's own Recreation & Parks 2012 Business Plan.

It may be a more straight forward and convenient approach to add the fringe areas after the referendum has expired in November 2013.

Thank you for your consideration,
Robert Stoldt ____________________________________________________________________________________

Letter from Moose Heights resident (June 1, 2012)

Leave the boundaries alone; at least until the multi centre fiasco is over.  I want no part of this brain dead idea!  As to the 10 Mile Lake park, it was a community park since about 1966.  The current development is mainly for the lake area residents.  I have never had a problem paying extra to have my children in community activities in Quesnel.  If it not generating enough revenue, put the user fees up, not 230 properties’ taxes.  No residents that are affected have asked to be included.  Until that happens, leave the boundaries along.

Stan Hall

____________________________________________________________________________________

Letter from Moose Heights resident (June 4, 2012)

Heloise Dixon -Warren (CRD Director Area B)

The board of directors knows that in 2-5 years there will be 5000 to 12000 peopleout of work in the Quesnel ,Prince Geoge areas, farms are going down at alarming rate,no help in site. Logging and saw mill work ,Trucking and spin off work will disappear by at least 50% So now you come with your hand out. Responsible Goverment should be looking to offset the damage this is going to cause, not trying rope the people in  a tax increase , we will pay a little now ,but when when the city bullies it's tax payers into a multi-plex we will pay a hell of lot more (in times of recession we should make use of what we got,don't try dig a deeper hole. We have been slowly closing schools ,not enough kids, so we don't need more recreation centers. We had a park once,(Cotton river Park) but the kids from town came out partied threw garbage beer bottles,all over every weekend. The CRD closed are Park, could have used some of are tax money to have the parks people police the site (what ,spend money needlessy) and now you wan,t us to support a tax increase for parks and recreation. I voted against the firehall that the ten mile lake people had to have (COST BIG MONEY ) and has done absolutly nothing,(it.s sitting there waiting for the town to move out (infrastucture put in place for towns future use) I say no to the boundery exstention and if I still had property in Quesnel I  would say no to the Multi-plex it,s time to put money in the right place,set up committies to incourage investers to bring jobs to the community, young people have to have work they can play later.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Letter from Milburn Lake resident (June 3, 2012)

We are definitely NOT in favor of the proposed expansion of the taxation boundary for recreation and parks in the Quesnel sub-region.

We chose to live where we do because we wanted to be and recreate in the country. We chose not to live in the City of Quesnel with all its amenities,  recreation facilities and ‘nature walks’.

We do not use the recreation and parks facilities, venues and services in the City of Quesnel and were we to avail ourselves of the local facilities (Bouchie Lake) and we have not since we moved here four years ago, then we would gladly pay for those services, locally.

Raking the country residents in to a city boundary for recreation taxes will be abetrayal.

It is interesting that significant parcels with nobody living on them would be taxed creating unfair burden to the owners, while others seemingly smack in the middle and far closer to town and services, are not included. The boundary itself is not 'right'.

As a matter of fact, there are a great number of rural residents in the urban catchment that shouldn’t be... they are rural. On a somewhat similar note, it is not right to levy a recreation tax based on property value... the bachelor rancher surely does not incur the same recreation expenses to a venue as a family of five on a lower-valued property – seems unfair.

Whether this planned money grab suffers unfortunate timing or is a not-soclever tactic gone wrong, it seems to us that the real meat of this proposed recreation & parks taxation boundary change is an attempt to lend viability and funding to the City of Quesnel Multi Centre project. To this we say absolutely NO ! Unless of course the 728 taxed residents who would be directly affected by the proposed change could vote retroactively on the Multi Centre project, in the spirit of the new privilege of paying for the project, full participation and all that.

Leave city-focussed recreation within city limits; localize outlying recreation facilities & services; allow potential users of recreation services from outside the city to pay an extra surcharge.

Most sincerely,

Heide Krause, Rawlings Road, Area B

_______________________________________________________________________________

Letter from Area B resident (June 6, 2012)In being a Senior citizen, I have not and will not use the facilities of the proposed multi-centre. 
I can't afford the proposed tax increase that I'll have to pay after its built, for someone else to enjoy once its built and therefore, I strongly oppose the project.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Letter from "North of Quesnel" resident (June 6, 2012)

Thanks for these notices.  Can't make these meetings but do have some comments.  The tax right now is being collected by the facilities from the people in our areas that actually use them.  I went to the pool  this spring to help me get back on my feet after breaking my leg.  

Other than that my and my families use is very minimal.  I have space to move on my own property and work to do here and have very little interest in recreation facilities.  I guess it is nice that they are there for the people who want and use them but I think most of the people in our area are here because we want to be and not because of some building in town.  I figured it out that if I went to the pool 3 times a week for three months then it would be cheaper to get the pass.  Otherwise it wasn't worth the once a year cost.  Putting it on our taxes may be easier for the staff but would not give us a choice of using the facilities or not and then there would still be a need for the passes to be issued because there would be actually out of town people using out facilities.  I also don't like the idea of making people pay that don't even live on the property.  If it was on actual resedances, not just tax parcels.  Please let them know that my husband and i are NOT in favor of paying this amount of a tax on some thing that we probably will never see the inside of.  Thanks again for keeping us informed.  By the way, we didn't get the notice till after the meeting.

Lou & Robert Dobie

_______________________________________________________________________________

Letter from Area B resident (June 6, 2012)

Our reasons for emphatically OPPOSING the proposed changes are as follow:

• We live 11 miles away from town because we WANT to live in the rural area.
• Living this far from town, we have never once used the Recreation Centre or the Arena, probably never will; nor would we use a multi-centre.
• We live here for the peace and quiet, and the fresh air of country living – this is our lifestyle, and it is more affordable for seniors on a fixed income.
• We simply cannot afford to pay higher property taxes in order to provide ‘services’ that we neither want nor will ever use in the foreseeable future, including and especially a multi-centre costing millions.
• With rising costs in every part of our already frugal lives, pension incomes are nowhere near keeping up.  Raising property taxes will only add to the pain.
• The proposed $131.00 per $100,000 assessed value will increase our property tax bill by one-third – this is simply a cash grab and the thin edge of the wedge towards yearly increases for fewer services.
• This would be ‘much pain for little gain’ – in our case, for NO gain!
• We readily pay a part of our taxes towards the Ten Mile Lake Fire Department; and also pay a portion of our property taxes towards supporting the Regional Library Service, which in any case should be freely accessible to all citizens.
• We suspect that the hundreds of thousands of dollars that would be generated by this proposed tax grab would far exceed the dollar amounts currently realized by out-of-boundary citizens paying yearly memberships at the city’s facilities.  The elimination of ‘passes’ would certainly save the City of Quesnel some administration and paper costs, but only at great cost to us.
• While we in no way begrudge the safe and convenient facilities to the general population, we cannot willingly pay outrageous amounts for services we will never use – or ever have – or even want!  Other than the Ten Mile Lake Fire protection for which we already are taxed, we have no services out in our area: no water, no sewer, no garbage collection, no transportation, no lighting, no sidewalks, no ditch-clearing…
• Finally, there is a very real concern that this is the lead-up to the City of Quesnel wanting to extend its municipal boundaries and take us all in – especially for our property taxes which would inevitably skyrocket - not at all a popular idea!

_______________________________________________________________________________

Letter from Area B resident (June 6, 2012)

We don’t use the Recreation Center (pool, etc).  Why should we be taxed?  We’d be better off paying a charge if we used the facilities – instead of paying the tax forever.

 

Why don’t we have a vote on it?

We don’t use arenas although we agree there should be safe, good seats & heat in arenas.  Again – we are o.k. to pay if we use arena.  We don’t feel we need a 30 million dollar multicenter – a waste of money just to have a nice arena.

If boundary extended – is it a cover-up for city boundary extension?  If so, are we getting water, sewer, garbage collection, street lights, etc??  We feel we’ll be getting nothing we need – except higher taxes – which we don’t need!!

We pay handydart tax. When we phoned to use the service – we were told they would pick us up if they had others in our area at the same time to pick up – since when do people arrange their appointments at the same time!?  There’s also a charge for this service which we are o.k. with.  We never use the service!

That $131.00 per $100,000.00 land value is just a starting point – who knows how much it will increase yearly??

We seniors are on fixed pensions that don’t increase by much, we are finding it hard enough now – with medical expenses, MSP, hydro, heating, food, etc, etc increasing – so add property tax increase – how are we to make ends meet?

We already pay library tax.

Multi Center

We did not even have a vote on this waste of money project, and are probably going to be taxed on it – who knows maybe a hidden tax covered by “Rec. tax”?  If we had a vote – it would have been NO!

Kosta’s Cove and that meeting room at Parkland School both seem to be useless to us – we’ll never use Kosta’s Cove (previously filled out paper passing on info that we do not want to volunteer or be involved with it at all).  We feel meetings could be held in a classroom.  We’ve only attended one meeting so far.  We took it we are being taxed on these two ‘facilities’ already??

 

We feel to pay this proposed Rec Tax – we are getting nothing.  If facilities were in our area – we may use them – but living the distance from town and the Rec Center – we just don’t use them.  We’re just helping the city people pay for these facilities, it seems.  The tax would seem more justified if facilities were in our area.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Letter from Area B resident (June 11, 2012)

Dear Heloise, 

As a property owner in Electoral Area B, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed taxation boundary changes. 

Firstly, I am not in favor of the multicenter concept given the current economic uncertainties locally, provincially, nationally and globally.

·         Consider the state of Quesnels’ wood industry, on the downturn and extremely uncertain.

·         Look at our demographics! According to the Multicenter Business Plan – Quesnel has a fast ageing population and steadily decreasing school enrollment. Since 2006 population growth has been stagnant or decreasing, a trend projected to continue into 2031. So, who will pay? Who will use it?

·         This is NOT the time to burden residents with unnecessary debt, an arena and theatre are NOT exactly essentials!!

I also have several concerns regarding the decision process for the proposed boundary changes:

·         Property owners were not included in the referendum –a referendum that only passed by a slim 240 votes. It is extremely significant as there are more than enough residents within the proposed boundary to change the outcome….if they were given a chance to vote!

·         I question whether or not the CRD can legally and ethically do this - the whole democratic process is seriously in question on this matter.

·         Why change the boundary now, after 30 years?  Especially with NO population growth for the next 20 years.  It seems to me that the only major controversial capital expense at present is the multicenter – if not this, please explain what the increased taxes will be used for.  With no exact costs available – what is the plan?

·         The lack of consultation is also an issue. The notices of the CRD Open Houses were not received by many households until after the meetings were held. There was little accommodations for shift workers – in a mill town no less!! This is just not right!

I appreciate your hard work on our behalf; it is at times a thankless job and often a delicate balancing act.

So it is with this in mind that I ask that you vote to reject these proposed boundary changes.     

_______________________________________________________________________________
Letter from Area B resident (June 11, 2012)

To all Regional District Representatives
 

I am writing you a quick note to inform you of our opposition to the purposed changes to the North Cariboo Recreation & Parks Taxation Boundary.

We are ALR property owners, meaning that we live a great distance from the city of Quesnel. We as ALR property owners do not feel that we should be taxed as urban land owner as they are much closer to these facilities and have the means to use them frequently. We as rural citizens have been using the “pay as you go” system and it has been working just fine. Our area and lifestyle does not require a multicenter. The cost is too high.  Any new proposed changes in taxation should be the result of many months of consultation with its constituents. A mere few weeks with very vague information, which has been sent in the mail via a flyer, was not adequate as far as we are concerned. This flyer, that many people have ignored, was not clear on the objective the CRD has for its proposed changes. We feel this is all about obtaining a greater taxation base for the Quesnel multicenter. It is not going to enhance our rural life but force us to pay more taxes for something we do not want nor require.

 In closing, we strongly oppose this change to the taxation boundary, and the method in which it was delivered to the public.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Letter from Area B resident