A Host Of Possibilities

Question.

Can you explain the term "returned to the source" please?
Returned to the roads department?
Returned to general revenue?
Is this million now available for other projects?

June 2, 2010 9:49 AM

I posed the question .

Since the source from whence all good things flow is the taxpayer, how will the $1,26 million

be returned? In other words, it's a tidy sum to be holding onto with hot sweaty fists.

I didn't use that language. The Mayor would undoubtedly have ruled it out of order as an obscenity.

The Treasurer said ;

No because grants were the source. I think he meant gas tax money from the Province.

When Councillor Wilson asked previously; could the money be used for other projects? Public Works Director said we might use it for sidewalks.

Either way, we are not getting it back.

That represents a problem for me..... and you.

There are ten-year capital forecasts for roads. Projects come forward each year in priority. When the budget is prepared, project costs are estimated and become forecast expenditures.Inaccurate estimates means more money is collected in taxes than required.

Revenue is also forecast whether it be tax levies or other sources. It might be from reserves but since they are topped up from levies property taxes are still the source.

Gas tax money has to be used for roads but not for specific projects.

Until now we have maintained a capital reserve for water and sewer infrastructures from taxes.

This year, the Treasurer decided that wasn't good accounting .The funding should come from water rates, not from taxes. So water rates were increased by $250.thousand. Of course, that reduced the tax levy for that item by the same amount.

I don't know if gas tax money is intended only to pay for surface projects. Probably. We are certainly entitled to receive the money, since at the municipal level,we provide a considerable share of roads in the Province. It's not Provincial largesse.

When I send an e-mail seeking answers to a specific question. I am likely to be told. it's not a good use of staff time to be providing answers through that medium.

I didn't vote for this year's budget. Nor the last . Nor the one before that.Nor the 2007 budget.

This year, I contended new assessment and grants pouring in should cover any increase in expenditures. .

I think that $1.3 million dollar surplus in those three roads projects would have been more than enough to take care of the 2.5% increase in the budget.

The 14% increase in water rates is another matter.

Of course, not being a treasurer and not understanding pesky details about gas tax revenues: why don't they reduce the tax burden on the home-owner: why can water and sewer reserves be supported by water rates while water rates are not supported by taxes but tax supported services can be supported by water rates???

Not being expert on these matters and depending on experts for answers so that I can provide rational answers to people who pay the taxes, which is part of my job; and experts deciding it's a waste of expert time to provide answers to such lowly person as myself while the majority of elected representatives don't even have such damn-fool inquiries.

You know what they say about possession being nine-tenths of the law.

The law says we are entitled to answers. But if the People of Mormac , who have the answers, won't give them up, short of a gun to their heads, which would be quite inappropriate, I can think of only one answer to the problem.

.