Point of geography
Surely it doesn’t need to be said again, but the planned new Powell River Public Library will not be on Willingdon Beach or in the park, but in part of the vacant lot to the south, and will not interfere with the view of the beach [“McNaughton stands alone,” February 27].
It is not going to be an expensive luxury building but just what is necessary for a library to do its job. There is a great groundswell of support for it in Powell River. We are presently waiting for a price estimate before the next step is taken.
Besides free book and computer use, the library provides countless essential services to the community, adults and children.
There are basic reasons why the old Brick location cannot be used for a library, one of which is that it is not built strong enough to hold up the books.
A public library is one of the few public institutions we have that are truly democratic and based on personal trust and respect.
George Samuel and Joanna Dunbar
Strathcona Avenue
Broken promise
In 2012 the issue of proposed increased taxes was of concern to City of Powell River taxpayers [“Council holds line on tax hikes,” May 9, 2012].
Council, sensitive to those concerns and to the degrading state of the city’s infrastructure, concluded that there would be a 3. 8 per cent increase to residential taxes and a one per cent increase in business/other taxation. Those new revenues, it was promised, would be committed to city reserves for asset management.
On April 20, 2012, the city published the following news release:
“For the year 2012, the financial plan proposes a 3.8 per cent increase in residential taxes and a one per cent increase in business/other taxation. In order to support sustainability, the funds from these taxation increases are allocated to city reserves for asset management and will not be directed to operations.”
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013, the Peak ran the story, “Budget shortfall could lead to higher taxes.” That story revealed that council had in fact broken its promise to the taxpayers by spending those new taxes collected in 2012 on things other than asset management. The city’s chief administrative officer (CAO) didn’t think council should worry too much about breaking its commitment to the taxpayers, expressing himself as follows: “Don’t beat yourself up too badly that the honourable commitment you made of 3.8 per cent previously toward asset reserve can’t happen. What that says is that there isn’t enough money in the pot now to suddenly find contribution to reserves.”
This is a scandalous position for the city’s CAO to take.
By not directing that the money raised by the 2012 3.8 per cent tax increase be placed and kept to the credit of asset management reserves, council has betrayed its commitment to taxpayers.
The city has recently concluded asset management plans for its water and sewage systems. In combination, those plans reveal that those systems have a funding shortfall of $1,966,000 on average per year in each of the next 20 years.
Council has demonstrated that maintaining infrastructure is not its first priority, rather money credited to infrastructure reserves is but low hanging fruit to be used at its pleasure.
George Orchiston
Joyce Avenue
