The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Waterloo Itil With a thtttlltitt whammy Waterloo [minim-Is didn't um an} breaks m the regiont budget last week with council m: mg In increase property taxes In 3.88 per uent. Tim: will add about $4546 lo the average Watcrluo household; property tax bill this year. Thais in addition to the 4.l per rpm local residents faced last year. with the increase bring almost dotr hle the inflation raw both years- Council argue" '_he tax increase was needed to pm " services the citizens wanted, {minding increas- ing the size of thrs Waterloo regional police force by M ofiicers. 8tttttetttttrtt not appropriate tte area But some aluminum. like Water- Inn's Mike Connolly. voted against the increase, saying it was an unprecedented expansion of Continued from page 8 Loblaw Properties has scheduled a "community meeting" for today Feb. 2. to discuss its project with Waterloo residents. The meeting will he held at St, David Catholic Secondary School. beginning with an open house at h The open house will be followed by a presentation by [nhlaw repre- sentatives and a question-and- answer period and "workshop". nehate WIIIIIII start healing process ecently. it was announced Rhal a settlement had been eached in the lawsuit between Martin Fischermieskau, and the two defendants: John Spearn and thtsymphony associa- “on. Now, people may be heaving a sigh of relief and thinking how glad they are that all the controversy is, finally over. But, it really over? I think not. I believe that there are still a number of unanswered questions that need to be debated by and dealt with by the symphony board of directors. Questions such as: I. Who is going to take responsi- bility for involving the symphony association in what appears to have been a totally unnecessary lawsuit? 2. What consequences will the responsible person or persons experience? 3. The lawsuit was about an arti- cle written by John Spearn and printed in the Record, Did this ani- cle need to be written? 4 Did the article nced to he made public? 5. Did the article need to include nt‘galivv comments on Mr. Fischcr Din-skan's abilities as a umdnrmr7 is Why was thc article purported In be from the symphony hoard when. to the hrs! of my knowledge. at St, Residents are expected to buy chool. into the assumption that the store U? at b will be built. indicate cosmetic pref- erences. and suggest methods for llowed managing excessive traffic near the repre- site and cut-through traffic on near- ond- by streets. spending try 1hr region that will be unsustainable m the future. This year's budget also proved in he a double “halnmy for Waterloo taxpayers as regional council decid- ed to add in the area-rated cost for Grand River TruItsit. But instead of phasing it in over a two- or three-year period. it will all be lumped nu this year's tax bill, adding another S41 to the average Waterloo homvowner's levy. To their credit, both Waterloo Mayor Herb lipp and Waterloo regional Conn. lane Mitchell voted against this onetime charge, argu- ing it should be phased in over three years because it almost dou- bles the effective tax rate for Water- loo homeowners this year. " is clear that Loblaw Properties considers the building of the store to be a certainty. The comparly neither wishes nor expects to debate whether the store should be built. it was not explicitly approved by the board either before or after it was written? 7. Why was the article posted on the symphony association Web site, and why was it kept there when it was clear that the presence of this article on the Web site was the only reason for the association being sued? 8. Who made the decision to place this article on the Web site and keep it there? Were these deck sions made by the board? 9. Were any of the board's direr, tors involved in informal discus- sions in terms of supporting and encouraging the writing of this ani- cle, even though I as far as I know) the association's constitution does- tit allow for small groups of (lime tors to make ad hor decisions away from formal committee and board meetings. IO. Recently, I, as a member of the association and therefore part of the group being sued. asked for a copy of the correspondence between the association and the association's lawyer in rcgard to the lawsuit. l was told that a "orrdiwlosurv agreement between Mr. Fisrhr‘r himkan and the symphony pro vr-nts the publir from having any information other than the inlnr With local taxpuyers facing Residents need to insist upon a COMMENT DITORIA] RON ICL] 211mm” " 42 per cum increase In city um“. this year, after absorbing a double-digit increase last year, you wonder lust how much more they can take. Regional council obviously didnt take Waterloo taxpayers' unfortu- nate plight uf still trying to get out from under the RIM Park financing mess into consideration, That?, why local citizens should be paying more attention to what's going on at the regional level ---- the level of government that still repre- sents the biggest portion of the local tax bill. Instead, there was only one ride, gation in opposition to the pro- posed increase. Hardly enough to make an impact. return to the more fundamental issue of whether the massive store is appropriate for the proposed location. We need to replace President's Choice with residents' choice! mation already filed with the court. Does this mean that association members. who are all defendants in the lawsuit, are barred from gaining any further information about their own lawsuit? Does this make sense logically and/0r legally? ll. If the current board of direc- tors proves to be unable or unwill- ing to deal with these questions, will the association members remember this failure and consider it when voting for directors at the next annual general meeting? 12. The symphony is currently seeking not just grants, but increased grants, from local mimic ipaliu'es. Does the public support the granting of public money if the symphony board proves unable or unwilling to effectively deal with these unanswered questions? I personally hope that the sym- phony board does engage in debate in regard to these questions and issues, and then makes the results of its' deliberations puhlir. Then. the healing process may fmalty begin, Oh well. iherey always next year. Doug Rickert Waterloo Allan Goebel Waterloo an week regional council finally approved tth budget I which included a 3.8 per cent tax increase, Ihis translarte, mu about $46 on an average home valued at Sl83.000 excepl. surprisingly if you live in Waterloo. ratepayers can expect to pay the $46 plus an additional $41. ~“r"' ‘V r“: "" ' l The reason for this extra amount is because regional council decided to phase in the "area rated" cost for Grand River Tran- sit in one year rather than three. When the region agreed to assume the responsibility for a regional transit authority, both Kitchener and Cambridge transferred their buses, people and everything else associated with transit w the region Council at the time agreed to keep the cost assigned to Cambridge and Kitchener tax bills until the service improved in the other cities and townships. with the proviso that it would be reviewed at a later date. Region gives local taxpayers an extra hit Well. the later date was this past budget cycle, and it makes sense that the cost of transit should be covered by the entire region; but a one-year phase-in forces one city {Waterloo} to endure the greatest increase on the tax bill in one fell swoop. (As if we need to endure another tax hit!) Either way, Waterloo was going to get hit with a Stl increase, but it could be done in one, two or three years. For example, if a three-year phase-in was chosen, the cost would be $13.66 a year. h In a close vote. regional council chose one year. Thanks a lot. Thankfully. Mayor Herb Epp and Coun. Jane Mitchell voted against the one-year phase-in; but, for some inex- plicable reason. Court. Mike Connolly voted in favour of it. When I asked Coun. Connolly about this, he stated that he believed he needed to act in the best interest of the entire region and it wasn't fair that Kitchener was paying most of the cost, A good point, but in my view fairness could still be achieved over three years, rather than one and the burden on Waterloo taxpayers would be lessened. Spreading the $41 over three years would be more realistic. The big winners in this scenario are the City of Kitchener, whose regional taxes will go down by $40; Woolwich. who will see a $3 decrease: Wellesley, whose rates will go down by Sil: and Wilmot, who will see a $1.50 decrease. In addition to the increase in Waterloo, Cambridge taxes will go up by S23, and North Dumfries' will go up by $9. a“ -r “a '-~'v'*'* ' u - - I know all the numbers want to make your head spin. but consider this: when the tax increase of 3.8 per cent and the adjustment for transit is rsgured in, Waterloo is paying $87 more per average household in regional taxes this year - and Kitchener is paying only 56. Ouch. The Beer Store goes big -iiisTyirtiirdr" seenoso much ink devoted to something that amounts to a $130 fine? Well, I guess I will add In the froth. so lo speak. _ The average lee isn't aware that when a new building is COO- structed it has to go through various city planning procedures. and if it requires a sign it needs to conform to the city's sign hvlaw. Anyone who travels to the southern states recognizes that a sign bylaw can be a good thing. controlling the size, shape and illumination of commercial signs helps maintain a friendlier atmosphere in a city. Locally. the requirements of the sign bylaw escaped the Beer Store who, after remodeling their store at Weber Street and Iaur coln Road Mon" ask me how I know precisely where it is Inca!» ed) placed a "temporary" sign on the from that did not comply with the city bylaw. Signs go up all the time that don't comply with the bylaw. I guess this one didn't make it to the sign bylaw variance mm» mittee (don't laugh; this committee does exist) and the Beer Store put the sign up __ aghast - without council permission. The Beer Store has since apologized and removed the sign. and the city has launched legal action and fined them $130, Council and staff “Rudd he better to arcppt an apology After all. the sign has been removed. m move on with things. r (we). all th'i's talk about the Beer Store is enough In make a guy go to the fridge and get a cold nm'; maybe a few more pro pl" should do the same thing and rhill nut on this om' . brmail your que'ruiortslornmt'nts seanstrickunderogershhacktrerTyaret . In