Consider the long-term property tax implications before casting your vote in the Feb. 8 city referendum to spend as much as $215.9 million on a new Crystal Pool.
The special edition of CONNECT, a household mail-out newsletter, outlines the case for the facility, but omits important information.
Firstly, the June 7, 2024 staff report to committee-of-the-whole on the feasibility study recommends the city proceed with Central Park North as the development site.
The report says, ”Considering the various factors assessed by the project team, the Central Park North option ranks highest, as it is the most economical, fastest, and least complex to build. This option offers the City the best opportunity to effectively mitigate risks, including additional costs.
“In contrast, the Central Park South and Caledonia options, while viable, contain additional logistical challenges and higher costs due to their site-specific constraints.”
Given this explicit conclusion about costs, why is council even giving voters a second location option?
Secondly, the tax impacts are mentioned but don’t tell the whole story.
For both funding options, a total of $47 million will be used from City reserve funds to reduce the amount of borrowing required. That comes though at a cost to taxpayers.
Legislation requires that any funds borrowed from a reserve be repaid with interest, before the funding is required for the purpose of that specific reserve, according to the city.
The city’s financial sustainability policy sets the repayment term at 15 years. To pay back a $47 million drawdown the city says it would require an annual repayment of $4 million (using estimated interest rates).
So, drawing down reserve funds would come at an additional cost to taxpayers either through increased property taxes or another source of revenue like parking fees.
That additional cost is absent in the tax impacts presented to residents.
REFERENCE
https://pub-victoria.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=97681
Thank you for spelling out the true costs of Crystal Pool. Another important aspect that hasn’t been dealt with by city communications is the loss of mature trees and green space in a city park that is vital to the inner city neighbourhood of North Park. Both locations involve tree loss, the current site less so, which is one reason staff cited for going with North. In 2025 what city council would be obtuse enough to build in a park?