Dear Editor:

Last year, the municipality decided to keep the current tax rate (misleadingly called zero, but it means the tax rate would not be raised for 2010) and the result of the good work by council and staff was an increase in revenue of $1 million and a surplus of $500,000.

Some have been frightened by claims that are not applicable. It won't affect garbage collection -- the utility fees are charged separately and increases of five per cent to 13 per cent (water, sewer, solid waste) have already been approved for 2011. They are usage based whereas the tax rate is applied to property assessments.

The present discussion is whether to keep our present tax rate that we've had for the past two years or to raise it. Keeping it means no increase so that's why it's called "zero," but the term refers to not raising the rate, not the dollar amount of the budget.

Council passed Coun. Michael Smith's motion of raising the tax rate 1.1 per cent in spite of Coun. Bill Soprovich's continued plea for no rise in our tax rate (called zero, also supported by Coun. Michael Lewis; Coun. Shannon Walker was absent).

The budget bylaw will come back Jan. 10 and more public input will be possible then. Does anyone think 1.1 per cent of $77 million can't be found?

Salaries went up four per cent in 2010 and will be four per cent for 2011 and comprise more than 80 per cent of the operating budget. That's unsustainable even if it weren't unconscionable given the income of many residents has decreased.

Contrary to the impression created in the Dec. 10 North Shore News story Residents Speak Out for Tax Hike, the majority of the speakers did not favour a tax hike. And in the past week, all four letters said no to higher taxes, as did nine out of the 10 letters under submissions in public correspondence.

Carolanne Reynolds, West Vancouver