Pipe bridge fees tied to Trail property values not fair

"I must say I have an issue with the City of Trail format of taxing on assessed property values."

Firstly, congratulations to all those involved for reaching an agreement with the new pipeline bridge. I was personally hoping for a least a single vehicle lane but that is now in the past.

If I understand the issue correctly, the primary reason for the new pipe bridge is to have a solid structure for the regional interceptor sewer line; I say if we need it, build it.

Reading Tuesday’s Trail Times (“Meetings reveal tax implications of pipe bridge,” Trail Times Sept. 22), I must say I have an issue with the City of Trail format of taxing on assessed property values.

Warfield and Rossland using a flat tax scheme seems far more fair and should be adopted for all taxpayers in the region. Everyone contributes equally for a city/regional project.

I am not against paying my fair share of taxes but this is definitely not fair.

People living within Columbia Heights and East Trail are far more liable to use the walking bridge on a regular basis than people from Sunningdale, Miral Heights, Glenmerry, and Waneta, but those are the areas that will be the hardest hit by increased taxes, (look up assessed values on the BC assessment website).

Carrying this even a few steps further, living in the Waneta area most residential properties do not have sewer services, (we are on septic systems), and it isn’t even an option for us to connect to sewer.

The city does not provide any support to us, such as pumping or maintenance, as they have done in the past for Tadanac residents. Due to this fact we do not pay any sewer taxes, be it on the yearly utility bills or annual property taxes.

Are we now going to be expected to pay for a pipeline bridge, built for sewer services, at a higher rate through assessment values, than city residents that have full sewer service while we don’t have any?

I realize we must all pay taxes to support city infrastructure but as I said earlier, our “fair” share. I urge the city to reconsider this issue. Also anybody that agrees might want to pass this along to city council and management as you see fit.

Bob WishneskiTrail