In the regular meeting of the Moose Jaw City Council, councillors began discussions regarding the implementation of an infrastructure levy.

It was recommended by the Department of Financial Services that City Council approve an infrastructure levy of $100 per taxable property per year for all properties, except for the multi-unit residential property class which will have an infrastructure levy of $100.00 on each unit of the multi-unit residential property per year. 

The levy was introduced in the report as a base tax, which means it could be applied to any infrastructure-related project for which funding is required. 

However, City Manager, Jim Puffalt said it should be put towards the castiron water main replacement program only.  

"To ensure that we do obtain community support for this type of infrastructure levy," said Puffalt, "it has to be designated towards a specific project." 

Puffalt also suggested that a per property rate could be discussed. 

"Think of a hotel for example, compared to a small property in the middle of the city. Is it particularly right that each of those pay a hundred dollars per property?"

Puffalt said implementing such a levy is a "very common practice" in Saskatchewan, citing North Battleford's per front street foot levy. 

"It gives some kind of recognition that large properties may use more of the resources of water and streets as compared to a small property."

Coun. Heather Eby said she was "disappointed" that council was having a discussion so similar to what was discussed with the LIP funding option in 2015, however she is in favour of introducing a levy.  

"As you know in the 2016 election the community spoke and said they were not in favour of what the council of the day had decided.," said Eby. "I guess I'm just disappointed that now, three years later, here we are back at the table, going to try to figure that out again. It wasn't easy decisions then, and this isn't going to be an easy decision here, and anybody who thinks that whatever we decide is going to be really easily received, or that people are going to all love it, it's not going to be like that."

Coun. Brian Swanson called the proposal “hypocritical,” stating that if implemented, that would mean the City is asking its citizens to "pony up" an 8.5 percent tax increase since taxes are already scheduled to rise by three percent next year. 

“I could support a levy, but it would be in a year where there was no tax increase," said Swanson. "A hundred dollar levy would raise the equivalent of 5.5 percent increase in property tax, add a three percent increase of property tax, we as a council would be going to the tax base of the City of Moose Jaw saying we need 8.5 percent more from you. Since the beginning of this term, I've stated my concerns about the state of the local economy and ability to pay taxes, and I'm not going to vote to force the taxpayers of Moose Jaw to pony up 8.5 percent more in taxation revenue to City Hall, when City Hall can't do what they're asking the taxpayers to do. That to me is hypocritical." 

If implemented, the levee would provide $1.6 million per year for the project. Coun. Dawn Luhning stated her strong opposition to the implementation of a new levee, adding that 1.6 million “is not going to make a dent” in a five to six million dollar per year project. 

“I don't feel comfortable at this time adding on an infrastructure levy," said Luhning. "I don't think the city economically, is prepared for more taxes. Taxes are a huge burden in this city. One just has to talk to some of the business owners around town, it's not easy. When you're looking at 1.6 million dollars in the whole scheme of things, I think we need to look at these budgets a little bit closer and not always be adding on more and more and more and more in every single area, every single department, every single situation that the City believes that they want. There are needs that we need to cover, and there are priorities that we should be aligning better with.” 

The report provided by the Financial Department states that in reviewing the 2019 to 2023 Capital Plans, it is clear that both the General Capital Reserve and the Waterworks Utility portions of the Capital Budget are in need of significant additional infrastructure funding.

No final decisions yet have been made. Council will continue to discuss the options in the coming months.