Mayor's Report - August 2007

In February of this year, Mayor Trasolini wrote a letter inviting Belcarra Council to: “...open a dialogue on a number of matters of mutual benefit. What are those matters? Well, let’s discover them together and mutually agree on what the agenda is going to be”. On May 15^th members of Belcarra Council met in good faith with Port Moody Councillors and staff to discuss such items of ‘mutual interest’. Unfortunately, it was clear from Mayor Trasolini’s opening remarks that Port Moody’s agenda was set.

At the May 15^th meeting it was suggested that Belcarra should contribute an annual lump-sum ‘user fee’ on behalf of all Belcarra residents to permit unconditional access to Port Moody’s recreational facilities ― an amount identified as $68,000 per year which equates to $100 for each resident of Belcarra. We clearly indicated that we were not interested in pursuing an agreement to contribute to the operation of Port Moody’s recreational facilities. However, we did suggest a “user pay” approach, where “user pay” means an “individual” who chooses to use a Port Moody service, pays to use such facilities on a per occasion, per session enrolment, per year or team registration basis; and to whom Port Moody accordingly could opt to charge a “non-resident” user fee reflecting a reasonable per capita portion of the costs underwritten by Port Moody.

A letter from Mayor Trasolini dated November 15^th, 2006, indicates that the City of Port Moody faces significant challenges given the number of large projects that Port Moody Council has approved in recent years, not the least of which is their new Olympic-size hockey arena that has run considerably over-budget. Those challenges notwithstanding, it is unusual for one municipality to engage in an unsolicited initiative to tax residents of another municipality for infrastructure planned and authorized without referral to that municipality, which is what Port Moody’s proposal seems to envision.

Belcarra is not simply an extension of Port Moody with identical patterns of interest and service needs. Belcarra residents have chosen specifically to live in a semi-rural setting where the vast majority do not want sidewalks, streetlights and many other types of municipal services.

The “bottom line” is that Belcarra has had no say in the planning, approval or contracting of Port Moody’s recreational projects, and has absolutely no desire to be taxed after the fact, either directly or indirectly, by the City of Port Moody. Accordingly, Belcarra Council has declined Port Moody’s request for an annual ‘user fee’ of $68,000 per year (to start).

The Community & Recreation Association of Belcarra (CRAB) operates an annual children’s summer recreation program with two-thirds (66%) of the program participants not Belcarra residents and, although Belcarra Council subsidizes this eight-week summer recreation program, a non-resident surcharge is not levied.

Another consideration is that most, if not all, Belcarra residents patronize many Port Moody businesses on a regular and on-going basis. Those same businesses pay taxes to the City of Port Moody. Would Port Moody Council be prepared to share a portion of their business taxes with Belcarra and other communities based on a per capita basis? We would presume not!

We understand that Port Moody Council is now considering a ‘user card’ system that would require a ‘user fee’ of about $330 per person per year for residents of Belcarra who wish to use Port Moody’s recreational facilities. We have suggested to Port Moody Council that the time-honoured practice of consumers choosing to spend their money in other jurisdictions would be a natural consequence of implementing an unreasonable ‘user fee’.

Search www.belcarra.ca Search WWW