With $130 million at stake, it's a heady task to prioritize which capital projects deserve to be in the 2009-11 budget. Sometimes the funding source is the deciding factor in the debate.
During capital budget debates this week, council members scrutinized how each project could be funded. Capital projects and equipment are funded with a mix of government grants, reserves, property taxes, offsite levies and, in rare instances, debt.
Council took keen interest in whether projects could be funded with grants, reserves or pay as you go (a fancy term for tax dollars that are set aside annually for capital projects).
Coun. Lorie Garritty defended the construction of a $140,000 dog park, arguing it won't cost taxpayers because the money is coming from reserves. (And a $10 hike to dog licence fees will eventually replenish the account).
Alternatively, reserves sometimes come into play when council does not want to support a project.
Mayor Nolan Crouse used reserves as part of his rationale for not approving two projects this year — extra funding for the St. Albert Housing Society's $19-million apartment building project, and the AltaLink relocation. Of the later, he said council would have to raise taxes to replace the $450,000 needed.
(I do not mean to single the mayor out, but those are the two most recent examples. And by the way, council did give the housing society $150,000 for that project, about $90,000 less than requested).
The whole idea behind a reserve is to accumulate cash to avoid a large single-year tax hit. Depending on the type of project, reserves are funded through developer levies, utility fees or taxes. Some $2.7 million in property tax dollars will be transferred to reserves next year for future capital needs.
Crouse and Garritty both have a point. Reserves do not immediately cost the taxpayer, but in the long term there can be a cost impact.
Reserves are not free.
Posts
