Expanding referendum to entire district is fair way to go
Letter by J. Smith to the Sooke News Mirror October 1, 2003

Editor:

It is my understanding, based on numerous questions put to and answered by helpful District of Sooke staff this past week, that the current plan considered by council is for Sooke's capital cost portion of the sewer system - a whopping $400 of the so-called "annual user fee" - to be paid by a parcel tax levied on property owners in the proposed service area (re: "Those paying most can't vote," Sooke News Mirror, Sept. 24).

A parcel tax is the same tax per property, regardless of its value, size, or purpose. Capital costs for businesses with larger sewage requirements are considerably more for on-site sewage treatment facilities than single family homeowners who need much smaller and simpler systems.

But under Sooke's proposed sewerage system, all users pay an equal share of the capital cost, regardless of the type of property. This means that single family homeowners are unintentionally subsidizing the costs of the larger businesses; in effect, corporate citizens are paying less, not more.

If a general property tax were used instead to pay our municipal government's share of the infrastructure improvement for our city, businesses in the town core who need and benefit most from sewers would pay 6.42 per cent more per $1,000 assessed value than single family homeowners for the capital costs facilitating Sooke's anticipated growth. And with a general property tax, the burden on Broom Hill owners included in the extended area for the purpose of reducing costs to the town core property owners (Stantec's Village Sewerage Study 2001 - Addendum to Technical report, p. 24) and those with lower incomes will perhaps be more bearable, keeping in mind that our connection fees and annual user charges (justifiably based on property type and volume of waste to be handled) will not be shared outside the service area.