.jpg;w=960)
qathet Regional District (qRD) directors have accepted the second draft of the 2025 to 2029 financial plan.
At the January 7 finance committee meeting, general manager of financial administration Linda Greenan outlined the second draft and its implications for taxpayers in City of Powell River and regional district electoral areas.
The 2025 tax requisition for all areas in draft two is $13,594,707, up from $11,971,127 in 2024, for an increase of $1,623,580, or 13.56 per cent.
In the city, the taxation cost per average home in 2025 for qRD is $573.68, up $66.11 from 2024.
In Electoral Area A (north of the city), the cost per average home is $1,675.16 in 2025, up $162.09 from the $1,513.08 figure in 2024. In Electoral Area B (south of the city), the 2025 average cost per home is $1,410.74, up $233.70 from the 2024 figure of $1.177.04.
In Electoral Area C (south of the city), the cost per average home in 2025 is $1,491.01, up $167.49 from the 2024 cost per average home of $1,323.52.
In Electoral Area D (Texada Island), the cost per average home in 2025 is $922.47, up $99.07 from the 2024 taxation cost per average home of $823.40.
In Electoral Area E (Lasqueti Island), the cost per average home in 2025 is $1,705.80, up $140.61 from the average home cost in 2024 of $1,565,19.
Electoral Area B director Mark Gisborne then questioned an $80,000 increase in Electoral Area B administration. Greenan said that figure was for three service reviews Gisborne has requested and that the figure in the budget was a placeholder.
“We are looking into the proper way to allocate that into the budget,” said Greenan. “We will get back to the board for draft three.”
Gisborne said the reason why he thought the placement of the proposed expenditure was an error was because correspondence received from the provincial minister of municipal affairs stated: “The costs of running the service review process is shared by the service participants as part of the service costs.”
Gisborne said the ministry clarified that if a director initiates a service review, it is not borne by that electoral area.
“It is borne by the service that is going through the service review,” said Gisborne. “Whatever costs arise from the service review will be split up by the Malaspina Volunteer Fire Department service review, the social planning service review and the subregional recreation service review. How the board wants to proceed with the service reviews is what determines the costs.”
Gisborne proposed an amendment to the second draft of the budget to remove the $80,000 from the Area B taxation, because it skews the figures and creates something that is inconsistent with the legislation and what the minister has stated.
Greenan said that staff, in the next draft, would outline what has been found out, and then specify how the item can be dealt with.
Electoral Area E director and committee chair Andrew Fall said he expects the budget will be adjusted in draft three.
Gisborne then asked about the subregional recreation service, wondering if the $233,000 had gone to City of Powell River for the recreation complex, even though the agreement had expired. Greenan said the money has been sent to the city, and that staff will be checking if qRD had erred.
City director Cindy Elliott said the matter of subregional recreation was in dire need of conversation between the qRD board and city council. She said most of the assessments and advice coming from the city’s chief administrative officer indicate qRD contributions are below what is equitable for all users. She added that a potential outcome is having recreation as a regional service and owned by qRD.
qRD chief administrative officer Al Radke said city staff have spoken with qRD staff about the service, and there has been some initial conversation about how to move it along.
Gisborne then made a motion that the $80,000 allocation to Area B for service reviews be removed from the area’s administration in draft two.
“It’s going to cause a great deal of confusion and concern and is inconsistent with the legislation,” said Gisborne. “We are still waiting to hear from our staff about where those costs will fall. It doesn’t actually sit on Area B’s shoulders.”
Electoral Area D director Sandy McCormick said her understanding was the categorization for the service reviews expenditures was just a placeholder in draft two, and in the next draft, the expenditures would be reallocated.
Greenan said staff were researching how the expenditure should be allocated.
“We will have it figured out and allocated to the right place in the next draft,” said Greenan.
Gisborne said he couldn’t accept draft two of the financial plan that has something inconsistent with what he understands.
Greenan suggested a motion that states staff investigate and reallocate the $80,000 from Electoral Area B and incorporate it into draft three of the five-year financial plan.
Elliott suggested amending Gisborne’s motion to remove the $80,000 from Electoral Area B administrative services and allocate it to the appropriate services for draft three of the budget. The amendment carried, so the committee passed Gisborne’s motion as amended.
The finance committee then voted to accept the second draft of the 2025 to 2029 financial plan.
Join the Peak's email list for the top headlines right in your inbox Monday to Friday.
