Cancel Fraser Highway? No Thanks.
As I do my final preparations for tomorrow's Township budget session, I read the Times's front page story with interest, quoting Coun. Mel Kositsky's suggestion that the Fraser Highway widening project be delayed in order to save "$6 million."
Seems like a reasonable suggestion to bring taxes down, doesn't it? Well, dig deeper, and you will discover that postponing or canceling the project will do nothing to help your property tax bill.
First, the project (which would widen Fraser to four lanes from the new Nicomekl River Bridge to 216th St.) costs $4.25 million, not the $6 million mentioned in the story.
Of that $4.25 million, $2.03 million comes from other levels of government and cannot be transferred to other projects. So if we don't do it now, we risk losing a chunk of that funding.
Of the Township's share, $2.06 million comes out of Development Cost Charges. That means we could cancel the project tomorrow and it would have NO effect on property taxes. That money has been funded out of new development, as the need for more capacity is driven by growth. The remaining $157,000 comes from the Township's capital works budget and is essentially a placeholder for contingency.
One could make an argument that other DCC priorities should be done first. That's a fair debate. I would argue that the DCC-funded road that needs the most immediate help is 208th Street in Willoughby. But under the agreement with TransLink on the decommissioning of the Albion Ferry, 208th Street (including the freeway overpass) will go into the Major Roads Network later this year, meaning up to 50% of the cost to complete it would be covered by TransLink--saving the Township's DCC Fund millions that we can use on other project in years to come.
Fraser Highway isn't a magic budget-busting bullet--canceling or postponing it won't save taxpayers anything.
In other budget-related news, I thought the Times's story on the demise of the Mayor's Finance Committee was fair.
Advance reporter Matthew Claxton also hit the nail on the head on his blog:
Seems like a reasonable suggestion to bring taxes down, doesn't it? Well, dig deeper, and you will discover that postponing or canceling the project will do nothing to help your property tax bill.
First, the project (which would widen Fraser to four lanes from the new Nicomekl River Bridge to 216th St.) costs $4.25 million, not the $6 million mentioned in the story.
Of that $4.25 million, $2.03 million comes from other levels of government and cannot be transferred to other projects. So if we don't do it now, we risk losing a chunk of that funding.
Of the Township's share, $2.06 million comes out of Development Cost Charges. That means we could cancel the project tomorrow and it would have NO effect on property taxes. That money has been funded out of new development, as the need for more capacity is driven by growth. The remaining $157,000 comes from the Township's capital works budget and is essentially a placeholder for contingency.
One could make an argument that other DCC priorities should be done first. That's a fair debate. I would argue that the DCC-funded road that needs the most immediate help is 208th Street in Willoughby. But under the agreement with TransLink on the decommissioning of the Albion Ferry, 208th Street (including the freeway overpass) will go into the Major Roads Network later this year, meaning up to 50% of the cost to complete it would be covered by TransLink--saving the Township's DCC Fund millions that we can use on other project in years to come.
Fraser Highway isn't a magic budget-busting bullet--canceling or postponing it won't save taxpayers anything.
In other budget-related news, I thought the Times's story on the demise of the Mayor's Finance Committee was fair.
Advance reporter Matthew Claxton also hit the nail on the head on his blog:
Considering the controversy the committee brought, with accusations of secret meetings and angry shouting matches (Councillor Grant Ward vs. Green, Coun. Steve Ferguson vs. Green, etc) it is probably for the best for everyone around the council table. The recent council priority committee meetings have been rather more civil than the budget meetings last year, at least so far.
When they get down to the nitty gritty of tax rates, we'll see.
posted by Jordan Bateman @ 4:21 PM
