The Editor,
Having recently received my Port Moody property tax bill, it is disheartening to read the same old comments from Mayor Mike Clay that the city has only two options regarding taxes: increase them to provide the same services or reduce them, which would result in a reduction of services.
At what point does Port Moody consider such principles as program efficiency or productivity improvement to allow the city the opportunity to maintain or increase service at a reduced cost?
Two specific examples of service failures are as follows:
• An example of a poor service choice is curling. For a few trinkets in curling hardware, Port Moody eagerly and proactively collaborated on a service scheme to accept curling from Coquitlam. This in spite of a curling rink in need of major improvements to the building, the ice making plant and the additional staffing to maintain the rink. Without additional financial commitment, the sport of curling in this facility is doomed to decline and eventually fail due to lack of participation.
• On the other hand, Port Moody has an obvious opportunity to save costs with no impact to existing service with the potential to save tax dollars if the city chooses to collaborate with one of the neighbouring municipalities in the delivery of police or fire services. Using both current financial and census data for PoMo and Coquitlam, the former spends an additional $1.7 million per year to provide identical police and fire services as provided in Coquitlam.
So one has to ask themselves, why would Port Moody eagerly jump at the opportunity to absorb a high-risk, low-reward service such as curling from Coquitlam, yet ignore the significant opportunity to save tax costs by collaborating with a neighbouring municipality in the delivery of police and fire services?
Barry Lang, Port Moody
