It is interesting how some people try to muddy the waters of this debate by using current tax increase amounts when the actual debate is with the portion of your total tax bill that is allocated to the multiplex. RM taxes should actually be dropping as past debentures are paid off.  When taking into consideration the loans, interest costs, money from reserve funds, and the annual operating deficit, reality is a long ways from the information that Mr Connery is trying to promote in the media.

If you want to see the full impact on your taxes, click on the multiplex cost calculator on the right side of this page.

Please comment at the bottom of this post how you feel about this media report.

From PortageOnline.com

Yesterday, RM of Portage resident Doug Connery came out strongly in support of the PCU Centre, and outlined figures disputing the level of taxation the project requires.

He’s received about an even split in reaction to his comments so far.

Connery believes the whole assessment formula that’s in place is the right way to go. He notes a switch to residential assessment only would mean those people pay three-and-a-half times more in taxes.

Connery adds residential assessment would see organizations like Simplot, foreign landowners, CN, and non-residential parts of Southport not payng tax. He feels the whole assessment is the most economical method for everybody.

Connery points out Tuesday’s RM of Portage Council vote will decide whether the project goes forward. He urges residents to contact their councillor and let them know how they feel, adding it wasn’t done 25 years ago, and needs to be done now.

Meanwhile, Dwayne Leslie of the residents opposed to the project stands by the tax calculations made on portagemultiplex.com. He says the true cost has to include reserve fund contributions and the complex’s 1.2 million dollar a year operating deficit.

Here are Doug Connery’s comments and calculations.

In May of this year I had a phone call from one of the Oakville area farmers who is concerned with what was happening in the RM, and the council’s involvement with the multiplex. He asked me if I was concerned and what my feelings were. My comment was I had not thought about it and I would investigate. I knew that with our high valued land, large building complex, and with seventeen houses on the farm we would be one of the hardest hit. This person’s other comment to me was that the taxing for this complex should be residential based and not land based.

I called the RM office for information and this is what I found out. Total assessment value in the RM is $310 million and residential assessment of this amount is $89 million. If tax was only to go onto residential instead of total rural assessment, residential owners would pay 3.5 times more, which I do not feel is fair. You would also exclude absentee land owners and businesses such as Simplot, Can Oats, CN, Centra Gas, Southport, etc. My conclusion was that taxation on total assessment would be the fairest and most economical basis for all.

The other concern of this individual was what the cost was going to be. The RM again supplied me with the figures of what our tax increase would be over 2007, and clarified that 2/3 was for the multiplex and 1/3 for general operating expenses. When we received our tax bills for the farm, excluding school taxes, the RM’s information was confirmed:

Our tax increase was $984.00 less 2% for early payment equalling $964.00.

964 x 2/3 = 642 for multiplex

964 x 1/3 = 322 for general operating

642 x 15 year amortization = 9630 in total new taxes to our family farm

My final conclusion was that total assessment was the fairest process for taxing the multiplex contribution by the RM, and that the increased tax is more than fair. For 10 family members this works out to $64.00 a year over 15 years. What a deal!

One of the other main concerns for the group opposing the multiplex was the interest costs and operating costs of this complex. Again, I did my investigation and called the RM for information.

The RM office told me that there would be retiring debt over the next few years and this would cover all interest costs and other expenses, and that the tax increase this year would be the only increase needed for the complex. The opposing group feels we need to factor in this cost, so here goes:

I would multiply my yearly complex taxes by 3 to include other costs which would equal $28,890.00 (9630 x 3), not the $48,500.00 which has been put out in information packages.

The councillor’s job in managing the RM is to budget for costs and, if there is going to be a surplus, to investigate and decide what capital expenditure should be undertaken next with this money that is best for all the rural citizens now and in the future. This is the process that council has started and I congratulate you for your excellent hard work and forward thinking.

There will be a vote at the council meeting on Tuesday and I appeal to all rural citizens who agree with me to phone their rural councillor and give them their thoughts on the multiplex.

We lost our multiplex in the past and we stand a good chance of losing it again. I do not want to have to tell my grandchildren why we do not have a facility that other, smaller communities have.

Doug Connery

Connery Riverdale Farms Ltd.