|
|
|||||
|
Residents in Sooke are concerned about the imminent tax hikes to pay for the new sewer system. |
|||||
|
Calendar of Events & special Dates |
Sooke's Sewer Application doesn't meet all the criteria [for federal/provincial grant application] Letter by Gail Hall to the Sooke News Mirror January 15, 2002 "Oh, heavens yes ... we meet all the criteria ..." This quote in the Sooke News Mirror of Dec. 26, was attributed to Mayor Macgregor when asked about the likelihood of Sooke obtaining an infrastructure grant for community sewers. Perhaps the mayor should read the Green Local Government Infrastructure Checklist, paying close attention to item D 15, which includes the following underlined: "Applications must include confirmation that a bylaw is in place which requires community sewer service to all new lots of less than one hectare in size." For the metrically challenged one hectare is 2.5 acres. The application filed on behalf of our community tries to dance around this requirement by blaming an ìold Regional District bylaw that doesn't integrate sewage requirements with zoning and subdivision requirements. Now a cynic, observing the bent of this administration, might wonder when have old Regional District bylaws ever affected their decisions? However, not being a cynic, I will point to Bylaws 68 and 69, already given first and second readings, which create 600 square metre (.15 acre) lots on Blanchard Road and the proposal for 353 square metre (.09 acre) lots included in the draft of the new Official Community Plan. In neither case are sewers a requirement. Obviously, the mayor and council have no commitment to the principles outlined in the Green Infrastructure program. The mayor might also read Section 7.5 "Eligible Costs", which identifies the "purchase of lands or any interest therein, including easements," as ineligible for grant monies. Checking the various documents, including numbers from the Stantec Report, approximately $2 million in land acquisition fees seem to have found their way into the eligible category. When asked about this at a council meeting, the response from engineer Smirfitt, supported by the mayor, was that the $2 million is included as contingency funding. "Contingency" implies uncertainty or incidental expense, etc. It is blatantly improper to include land acquisition fees as eligible expenses. The mayor should conclude his reading on page 12, with the section enclosed appropriately in a heavy black square, wherein it is stated, "... require the provincial government to be reimbursed if any costs ... are subsequently found to be ineligible." The sewer project has merit and may indeed meet all the criteria. 'We' however have not met the required criteria in our application but have thumbed our collective nose at the rules. It seems ironic that the grant monies are needed to erase the bad smell pervading our community. |
||||
|
|
|||||
Email WRATH