|
Who Should Pay?
At its regular meeting on
February 25, Council received a number of delegations and immediately
before the meeting, a public hearing was held with respect to the
establishment of the Revelstoke Station Heritage Conservation Area. The
delegations included Cathy English, curator of the Revelstoke Museum and
Archives and several persons with concerns about the proposed
Development Cost Charges that are under consideration by Council.
I wish to congratulate
Cathy and the museum directors on their energetic and ambitious plans
for the Museum which is such a valuable asset to our community which is
so proud of our history and defined by it. The continued vitality and
improvement of the museum do not come without cost and we have to
recognize that. Museum’s are not, with rare exceptions, money makers and
must receive financial support from the broader community if they are to
continue.
The creation of the
Heritage Conservation Area received unanimous and enthusiastic support
from the speakers at the public hearing and later in the regular Council
meeting, the bylaw to establish the area was given final reading and
adopted. I think that this is an important step forward for our
community. During the course of the creation of this conservation area,
and at the public meeting, the issue of grants or tax concessions for
improvements to buildings within the area has been suggested. If such
financial assistance is implemented, the cost of the grants or the lost
revenue from tax concessions will have to be made up from other
taxpayers in the city. If the preservation and improvement of the area
is seen as a benefit to all residents in the city, then this may be
palatable to those not owning properties within the area. However, some
may say that someone in another area of the city should not be called on
to contribute to the improvement of someone’s house within the area.
That is a debate that will undoubtedly occur.
The issue of Development
Cost Charges (DCC’s) also received attention. Without getting into
specifics, the general idea of this cost recovery tool, is to have
identifiable users of new or additional infrastructure bear the cost of
those rather than having the cost borne by the parts of the community
that already have that infrastructure. In some cases, the new or
improved infrastructure may benefit mostly new development but may also
provide a benefit to a lesser extent to the rest of the community. A
balance needs to be achieved to ensure that the charges are fair. This
means of paying for infrastructure is relatively new for Revelstoke but
is commonplace in most other communities in BC. The level of these
proposed charges is not particularly high compared with other towns and
cities.
The city has a limited
number of reliable ways to obtain funds to pay for services (snow
removal) amenities (the aquatic centre) conveniences (curbside garbage
pickup) and necessities (clean water). There is either general property
tax or rates and charges for specific services provided to specific
groups or individuals. We can also hope for grants from other levels of
government but these cannot be counted on with any certainty. Council
must make the decision on how services are going to be paid for and who
should pay. That is not always an easy decision.
There will be many
projects in the future which will require this debate including the
extension of Grizzly Plaza, the Arts Centre and recreation facilities. I
see these as important enhancements to our community. Who will pay? Who
should pay?
Submitted by
Councillor Johnston
|
