Yesterday - CRD Area 'D' Director Deb Bischoff reported out, on her website, the implications of borrowing $5 million ($5,000,000) for an Indoor Turf Facility for her residents that pay into the Central Cariboo Recreation Function. You can see that information here
This past Saturday, I blogged on the fact that all of the Central Cariboo Joint Committee members (all members of Williams Lake Council & CRD Directors for Areas D, E, F, J and K) should halt any new spending for Recreation until the local economy improves - see my blog post here
Just for discussion purposes:
Current 2011 Residential Central Cariboo (CC) Recreation Rate - $87.16 per $100,000 of assessed value (land/buildings) or on a property worth $200,000 in Williams Lake - $174.32
Borrowing $5 million for a Turf Facility without Victoria or Ottawa's help (borrowed over 10 years at 6% interest rate). With their help - the quoted rate goes lower
Add $30 per $100,000 to existing 2011 CC Recreation Function tax rate
So...
A recalculated 2011 CC Recreation Function Tax Rate of $117.16 per $100,000 of assessed value (land/buildings) or on a property worth $200,000 in Williams Lake - $234.32
Also - if the CC Joint Committee recommended borrowing money for (and received CRD Board approval):
a) Indoor Turf Facility (without grants) - $5,000,000
b) Phase 2 - Part 1 for CMRC Revitalization (without grants) $5,000,000
Then the CC Recreation Function tax rate would skyrocket to $147.16 per $100,000 of assessed value (land/buildings) or on a property worth $200,000 in Williams Lake - $294.32
Just the borrowing for the Indoor Turf Facility (without grants and I don't foresee any coming until at least 2014 at the minimum) would represent an increase to the existing Recreation tax rate of 34% in addition to other increases proposed by the CRD for Functions Williams Lake participates as well as whatever tax hikes Williams Lake Council would propose
Note - Numbers quoted are for a 10 year debt at 6% interest rate. Longer debt terms could see the actual rate charged go lower
Final Analysis:
Given the above and also given Victoria/Ottawa's desire to get out of the "red" by 2014 or 2015 - I don't foresee any grants being available to reduce the amount we would end up borrowing for either:
a) Indoor Turf Facility
b) Part 1 of Phase 2 upgrades to the CMRC (Recreation Complex)
or both "a" and b". Just borrowing for the Indoor Turf Facility, in addition to generating revenue for the existing Recreation Function is simply too much for the overburdened taxpayer and believe if the above went ahead - it is somewhat likely that residents' would grill the politicians of the day for that decision.
The best thing to do right now is to kill any thought of any borrowing (likely scenario) for an Indoor Turf Facility, at least for the immediate moment and that of the next WL Council/CRD Board term (2011-2014) until the local economy picks up. By 2014 - we can re-evaluate all the factors that would go into an Indoor Turf Facility and see if it is doable by then
7 comments:
Good points Steve, however you may want to note that on top of this cost for building/financing will be a substantial operating cost that would also have to be picked up by taxpayers.
Residential tax rates are just part of the concern. Commercial property owners pay substantially more than homeowners to the tune of $211.54 per $100,000 of assessed value for recreation in 2011. (Recreation is a larger tax cost to commercial properties than policing I might add) How much more can small businesses afford to pay before we lose more of our small storefronts? We all know that the constant tax increases will have to be passed on to the tenants, most of which are having a hard time with the sluggish economy as it is.
Most of the community values public recreation far more than you would know.
Not everyone can afford (or wants to) sign a contract to go to an overly expensive gym to watch steroid monkeys try and impress the girls. Most of us want the basics at a good price, and the options that the rec centre give us.
Anonymous, your comments regarding other facilities are misguided, offensive, and totally untrue.
My point, which you obviously missed, is that one must take into account all impacts of building another recreation facility. Upfront construction costs are only one part of the actual cost.
Wage/salary costs for city recreation currently sit at well over $1.5 million/year. This is approx. $17 per person per visit to the complex for rec use or if you include all visits including grad ceremonies or trade shows, etc… it cost taxpayers approx. $5 per person per visit. Now add on to that heat, light, advertising, etc... and this is a major reoccurring cost.
I don’t dispute the fact that recreation is very important, but we must spend tax money within our means and not put more burden on the already overtaxed businesses and public. Many things in life are important and nice to have but how we intend to pay for them is the question.
I would assume recreation also brings in a fair amount of revenue??!! Interesting how you do not factor this into your "analysis" as it pokes a big hole in your arguments.
I also expect it contributes greatly to quality of life in WL and would be key in recruitment and retention, not to mention the healthy living and community building aspect of what they do.
Funny how you forgot those things.
I have to agree with the previous poster on the private gyms in WL. Tried them all and found them to be expensive and far too "testosterone and silicone" and way too family unfriendly for my tastes.
If you find that misguided, offensive or totally untrue that is only YOUR opinion...mine is based on my experience and is shared by many I know.
It is very interesting how people can make accusations and have such strong opinions but are unwilling to post their names. They love to complain but could not have a actual conversation about their opinion because they hide behind their keyboard.
You would assume wrong anonymous #2. According to city documents, the complex earns 46 cents for every dollar it spends. The remainder is subsidized by the taxpayers of this area. A better record than Quesnel, city officials are quick to point out, but far from earning anything. My “analysis” is based on facts from city supplied documents obtained through the freedom of information act and I encourage everyone to do the same.
As I stated before, many services are nice to have. I also agree that they contribute to quality of life and healthy living, but how we intend pay for them is still the question.
Groceries are quite expensive, especially the healthy organic ones. Perhaps the city should build and run a grocery store, cut prices to half the actual cost of the groceries, and just raise property taxes to make up the difference. I’m sure our local tax paying grocery stores won’t mind at all as it’s all in the name of health. Cheap groceries would also be a great recruitment and retention incentive! Just pray they don’t check property tax rates before they move or build a business here otherwise they may change their mind.
I encourage everyone to stop into the many other fitness facilities in this city and see for yourself the high quality services they offer. You may however run into your neighbor, grandma, teacher or police officer while you’re there, so be careful not to call them a “steroid monkey”, as it is my OPINION they may be offended as well.
I for one have no issues with the amount of tax we pay for recreation.
I've lived in many communities and in my opinion we get exceptional value for our dollar here.
Post a Comment