Skip to content

SCRD directors put off decision on recreation capital funding

Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) directors are putting off a potentially tough decision on funding for capital work at recreation facilities until this year’s budget discussions.
SCRD

Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) directors are putting off a potentially tough decision on funding for capital work at recreation facilities until this year’s budget discussions.

In a report on “COVID-19 implications” for capital funding presented to the corporate and administrative services committee Sept. 17, staff recommended capital contributions for 2021 be reduced by $500,000 “to offset potential operating deficits as a result of COVID-19 restart implications.”

The report also recommended that starting next year, the capital renewal plan be funded through parcel taxes instead of taxes on the assessed value of properties.

Sechelt director Darnelda Siegers, who chairs the committee, said she’s reluctant to support taking the $500,000 from the 2021 capital contribution

“We could be in this situation for the next couple of years, so by actually taking $500,000 away from our maintenance of our facilities now to cover operating, what do we do next year when we may not be back to our previous levels for operating revenue, do we continue to pull funding from long-term maintenance on these facilities?” Siegers said.

“We cannot continue to take the future committed funds for maintaining our facilities, and use them to cover off operating costs.”

Elphinstone director Donna McMahon said she has reservations about the switch to a parcel tax to fund the capital spending in the future, in part because it could end up shifting more of the burden on to the owners of lower-value properties.

She also said there needs to be “a big community conversation about recreation.”

“This is a service that a lot of people do not make use of… We all produce sewage, we all drink water, but when we get into recreation we’re in an interesting situation where there’s … a very great range of how much it gets used by individual taxpayers.”

Andreas Tize of Roberts Creek said he sees a similar issue. “We're hearing a lot from a very vocal minority ... and it’s very difficult to make these decisions on behalf of the largely silent majority.”

Tize suggested that it’s time for a user fee review. “Maybe we should consider adding more of a burden of having the facilities open to those people using it.”

The committee voted to back McMahon’s motion to have consideration of how to fund recreation facilities’ capital costs brought back for the budget discussions with more information on the implications of using parcel taxes versus ad valorem, or property value based, taxes and possible provincial or federal funding that could be applied.

They also voted in favour of Tize’s motion to undertake a user fee review “for adjusting user fees to match a reduced supply for facility capacity and having users pay more of a share of COVID related costs.”

The recommendations will still need to be confirmed at a future board meeting.