Thinking they've found a way to get rid of the need for an infrastructure levy for 2019, Moose Jaw City Council has sent the Five Year Capital Budget back to city administration with instructions to put it on a crash diet.

Councillor Chris Warren made the motion Monday night to have administration review the entire $240 million document that covers spending for the next five years. Warren's motion would cap spending at $200 million and directs administration to find ways to slash or delay $40 million in spending.

"For a city our size, I don't believe this type of spending is sustainable and another factor that comes into play besides affordability and sustainability and that's the feasibility of this plan," said Warren. "The previous three budgets that I've been involved in, we have uncompleted works or carry forward amounts of $41 million in 2016, $32 million in 2017 and $43 million in 2019."

Warren questioned why this money is being collected and left to sit in bank accounts while there is no actual construction being done, suggesting that if administration only included the projects that could actually be completed then the budget process would make a lot more sense and could be sustainable. In anticipation of the motion being called a cost-cutting measure, Warren called his idea "right-sizing" and explained that Moose Jaw cannot continue to spend this much money each year.

Warrens comments were met with mixed reactions, especially from Councillor Heather Eby who didn't mind the idea of sending the budget back for further examination but she had an issue with the idea of removing projects.

"I certainly don't want to go back to the days where city council is afraid to vote in favour of projects because they're going to cost money and people are going to get upset."

It's been argued that years of no tax increases and delaying or deferring projects to future years has caught up with the city. The cast iron replacement project, upgrades to the water treatment plant, the water supply line from the treatment plant were all projects talked about in the budget process a decade ago but were left for future councils to worry about. Now council and administration need to find a way to pay to get all of them done at the same time before they face critical failures.

In more recent years, we've seen the results of deferring projects into the future with the Phyllis Dewar Outdoor Pool that could be past the point of saving. But now projects are creeping up that have the potential to impact health and safety of residents such as water reservoirs and pump houses that handle our drinking water supply.

"To nickel and dime the capital budget at this point, when I ran on spending more money on infrastructure, is the wrong thing to do," said Councillor Dawn Luhning. "There's money to be saved in the Operating Budget but we just don't want to do that."

Councillor Brian Swanson jumped on the motion saying council has had the budget binders for weeks and are just now sending it back, despite being told by administration that it's key to get budgets done earlier in the year in order to fill tenders at the best price.

"The idea that we just go back to administration to figure out a magic way to get us out of here," said Swanson. "I didn't get elected to sit here and fall on my knees and ask administration to figure it all out for me."

Mayor Fraser Tolmie was quick to point out that not too long ago it was Councillor Swanson who introduced a motion asking administration to come back with cuts to the operating budget totalling 8%, asking how this idea was any different?

It's not clear what, if any, projects could be cut or delayed in the Capital Budget but Warren believes if they can come back with a document that falls under the $200 million cap, then they might prevent an infrastructure levy this year. It was early December when councillors reviewed a report that explained a motion that was made in 2017 to transition the hospital levy into an infrastructure levy. However, instead of a flat $96 per year fee, the infrastructure levy was to be based on the size of your water meter. Residential customers would continue to see the $96 fee or about $8 per month, but the largest users would pay a whopping $2000 per month.

Many councillors seemed to have forgotten the motion they passed following the defeat of the LIP funding model for cast iron replacement in the 2016 election. That vote left council with a major gap in their funding model. It was March of 2017 when they passed the motion to increase taxes two per cent and directed that to the capital budget to help pay for the work. They also passed a motion that would transition the hospital levy into an infrastructure levy based on pipe size, once the hospital was paid off.

According to Councillor Warren, his plan would eliminate the need for that infrastructure levy but based on debate later in the evening, the majority of council seemed to agree that a levy is inevitable and all that's really left to be decided is when the levy comes into play. It was suggested that this motion would only delay the process to next year.