Letters ask for clarification, exemptions or partial property tax refund from Invermere
By Steve Hubrecht
[email protected]
Provincial travel restrictions announced nearly two weeks ago continue to be a point of contention in the Columbia Valley.
Invermere council discussed the issue last week at its Tuesday, April 27 meeting, prompted by two separate letters from those who own second homes in the district.
The first letter, from Howard Bakken, outlined a desire to return to Invermere from Alberta every few weeks to check and maintain his second home, and sought clarification on the definition of essential travel.
Bakken and his wife have owned property in Invermere for 20 years and — for the past several years — the couple, now retired, have lived in the valley almost full time from April to September, with only occasional trips back to Alberta.
“I will return to Alberta before Friday and not move back to the valley until the restrictions are lifted. I will re-engage our house checking service, however, I feel it is essential that I return to my property briefly every few weeks to check and maintain all the essential systems — HVAC, hot tub, sprinkler system, etc.,” wrote Bakken, adding “I know I could try to hire several local businesses to do this but that will be costly and arrangements for access are required.”
He requested that council work with provincial health authorities and the RCMP to clarify what is essential travel for Alberta residents who own property in the valley, and to then publish this information.
“Please recognize that these travel restrictions create emotional and financial stress on property owners from Alberta,” wrote Bakken.
During the meeting, Invermere chief administrative officer Andrew Young indicated that he feels the restrictions don’t need much clarification.
“The direction that is provided by the province is generally clear. The intent certainly is quite clear,” said Young, adding he was recently on a conference call with other B.C. municipal chief administrative officers, mayors and provincial Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and that the minister “made it quite clear during the call: stay at home. If that is what it takes in order to beat this thing, the message is to stay home.”
The second letter, from Renee Ratke, requested three exceptions to the travel restrictions; for people who can provide written proof from a medical doctor that they have already had COVID-19; for people who can provide written proof that they have been vaccinated; and for people who own property in Invermere (who Ratke termed “part-time residents” and who Ratke feels should be permitted to travel to those second homes).
“The third exemption above is based on the fact that vacation properties are ‘homes’ to the people who own them. They should be permitted to travel to those homes and then be required to comply with all COVID-19 restrictions while occupying that property, including to stay at home and only travel within the community where the property is located,” wrote Ratke.
She added that last year’s lockdown that prohibited Albertans from travelling to B.C. had devastating consequences on the local economy in Invermere, and wrote “the exceptions suggested above are a reasonable compromise to this serious COVID-19 situation.”
Ratke further wrote that if exceptions to the travel restrictions for second homeowners cannot be granted, she is requesting “a partial refund of the property taxes paid by Alberta residents who own property in Invermere, be made calculated by prorating the number of days that Albertans could not have access to their properties in Invermere. This would be a gesture of goodwill by the district of Invermere.”
Invermere council and staff pointed out at the meeting that the district does not have the authority to change property tax rates.
“Any local government in B.C. does not have this type of discretion,” said Young. “It is not within the gift of local governments to make individual arrangements with individual property owners to provide a partial refund of property tax. If that were to be the case, not only would we have the Ratke family, but any number of other property owners making the same request. It is not possible to do this.”
Councillor Ute Juras clarified that the travel restrictions are not meant to target Albertans specifically, but are broad, apply to everybody, and also means that full-time Columbia Valley residents can’t go to Calgary, just as Calgary residents can’t come here.
“It’s not picking on Albertans,” said Juras. “It’s not preventing people from travelling, it’s preventing people from going back and forth, back and forth, and possibly carrying the virus with them. If you’re from Alberta and you want to ride this out here (in the valley), be my guest. But stick around. Don’t keep going back and forth. That’s the point of the order.”
Young chimed in that Juras’s distinction is both correct and important.
“We have a large number of people who are currently living here in Invermere. They’ve chosen to move here and in some cases…left property in Calgary or elsewhere. And they have been living here in Invermere now for many months.
“They’ve made a choice to stay, including my neighbour up in Pine Ridge. We (Young and his neighbour) talking about this very matter. He and his family have actually been here for five months or more,” said Young. “They are well aware of the need to minimize travel. If they go to Calgary, they’re only doing it infrequently. You’re quite right councillor (indicating Juras), it’s a question of making a choice, and then staying safe where you are.”
Councillor Gerry Taft said he thinks the letters indicate the frustration of many second homeowners with a pandemic that has lasted more than a year.
“The reality is we are a border town,” said Taft. “Provincial lines on a map are easier to pick on.”
Taft noted that Invermere residents, under the travel restriction order, can drive almost up to the Yukon or all the way over to Kelowna, without incurring a fine, yet Calgary residents cannot drive three and half to four hours to their second homes in Invermere.
“It does fuel a bit of existing tension,” said Taft, adding second homeowners are an important part of the Columbia Valley community and are “not the same as a minivan full of tourists.”
Some second homeowners do have “legitimate reasons to come” continued Taft, adding that from what he understands, many of them are too frightened to do so. He noted the issue is a confusing one, pointing out that despite the restrictions, and perhaps a few new signs at the B.C.-Alberta border, there are to his understanding no enforcement officers stationed at the border, and “the reality is you can drive through right now.”
Taft concluded by saying “it’s a sensitive topic” and suggested the district, in its response to the letters, needs to be tactful and recognize the frustration behind such correspondence.
