Town council hosted a special open meeting on May 23 to discuss an Area A referendum on select shared services, agreeing that while a 20 per cent contribution from rural residents didn’t seem like enough, it would help ensure four key amenities in Golden remain operating.
For 18 months, the Partnered Services Delivery Review Committee has worked to reach a new cost sharing agreement between Golden and the Columbia Shuswap Regional District Area A.
“The new cost sharing model would ensure that rural residents would continue to receive the unchanged and traditional access to these facilities,” explained Mayor Ron Oszust, adding that the new model includes the Golden Municipal Swimming Pool, the Golden Civic Centre, the Golden and District Senior’s Centre, and the Mount 7 Rec Plex.
The committee unanimously recommended that council adopt its recommendations and indicate support for the CSRD to hold a referendum as part of the 2018 general local election process in October to implement the 20 per cent.
The four facilities have been funded solely by Golden taxpayers, the gas tax fund, and the Town of Golden.
With the new recommendation, Area A residents would agree to fund 20 per cent to the annual aggregate operating costs of the facilities, funneling more money into facilities they use, a total which is estimated to be under $100,000 per year.
Rural residents are said to make up 20 per cent of the people using the four facilities, although some councillors believe it may be more, however there is no system in place to pinpoint exactly where the users live.
“This is all residents are likely able to have the stomach for in a referendum,” said councillor Bruce Fairley. “If we set the bar any higher, they’re probably not going to support it. That was really at the end of the day what drove the committee’s recommendation.”
Council voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation, knowing that moving forward there will be a review in three years. Financial support from Area A residents will be critical in maintaining the level of service at the facilities and to plan for future cost.
“We have enough facilities for a community of 7,000, but 3,700 people are paying for most of them,” said councillor Caleb Moss. “So in not wanting those to go away, we need to go about it in some way to keep them open. It will also bring a partner to the table who can take part in discussions about what happens if those things are to fail because of lack of funding. It heads us into more complex conversations.”
Although many of the councillors were disappointed with the recommendation of 20 per cent aggregate operating cost funding, they were asked if they were able to live with the situation, and they agreed unanimously.
“I was actually hoping for a little more fairness and equity than 20 per cent,” said councillor Leslie Adams. “I just feel really disappointed that we believe as a full community, as Area A and Golden, that Area A residents won’t agree to more than 20 per cent. It doesn’t feel very neighbourly to me, and it feels sad to me that members of our community want to use the services, but want to put the tax burden primarily on the residents of Golden. Our operating costs are going up, so it is a start. Hopefully it will continue through the years.”
