Although the BV has not yet received a copy of the updated study on the proposed boundary extension by the City of Trail into Area A, I do have a couple of comments regarding an article on your front page on August 20 (Trail ready for next step in boundary expansion, Trail Times Aug. 20).
There is absolutely no agreement with any parties to share the Waneta Dam tax dollars 60/40. This is a position that Trail has taken without consultation from any stakeholder, and a position taken by Trail prior to seeing the final numbers from the updated Urban Systems Study.
However, now given the opportunity to ponder a new tax sharing model, I wonder if a 70/30 split in favour of the Beaver Valley might make more sense considering that Trail already has Teck’s annual tax contribution, and a further contribution of a million dollars, and an additional $250 K per year for the next 20 years (also from Teck).
Trail also suggests possible mitigation through the current BV Recreation Agreement with the City.
Trail is not in a position to speak on behalf of the BV on this point or any other regarding what the Beaver Valley will need to balance any potentially negative impacts to our services, should this extension proceed. And finally, we remember the sweet deal that Teck and Trail have negotiated for themselves, but what about the rest of the owners in the Industrial Park? Are they supportive of the proposed boundary extension? What’s in it for them and who will look after their interests should this extension proceed?
Can we please save the negotiation process for a meeting with all stakeholders once everyone has first received the report, and then has been given an opportunity to review the impacts?
Ali GrieveRDKB Area “A” director