The results of Sechelt’s Business Improvement Area (BIA) levy counter-petition are in and the levy has passed – however, it needs council’s consent before it’s enacted.
Council was set to make its decision at the April 19 regular council meeting, past Coast Reporter deadline.
The Sechelt Downtown Business Asso-ciation (SDBA) levy of $70,000 is to be split between 116 parcels in the downtown core with businesses on them. There are 195 businesses located on the 116 parcels within the BIA.
Only parcel owners were allowed to send in counter-petitions to stop the levy from moving forward, and at least 50 per cent of them, representing at least 50 per cent of the total value of properties within the BIA, had to send in a petition to stop it.
A report by Sechelt’s corporate officer Jo-Anne Frank in the April 19 agenda package showed that 35 signed petitions were submitted to the district by the April 3 deadline, representing 30 per cent of parcels and 28 per cent of the total assessed value of properties within the BIA.
“There are therefore insufficient petitions against the downtown Business Improvement Area service and council may proceed with consideration of adoption,” Frank’s report to council read.
She added that the district also received 15 letters of petition against the BIA levy from business owners who weren’t eligible to submit counter-petitions.
“The letters received represent eight per cent of the total businesses,” Frank stated in her report.
Council had previously heard a delegation from business owner Mike Evans, who stressed that businesses would be made to pay for the levy through rental agreements with property owners, despite the fact business owners had no say in stopping it.
He said many businesses in downtown Sechelt were already stretched thin financially and couldn’t take another tax or levy.
The SDBA uses the levy to “focus on the needs of businesses in downtown Sechelt and promote our community as a unique, vibrant and attractive downtown.”
Sechelt Mayor Bruce Milne said that council is “completely neutral” on whether or not the levy goes forward and previously stated that “even though the petition is closed, there has been far more concern this time … Council will look at that very closely regardless of what the results are.”
