On April 27, District of Houston council approved the bylaw needed to raise municipal property taxes by four per cent, ending what had been a series of debates at past council meetings of whether the community could absorb the increase or whether there should be a lower increase or no increase at all.
It was the second time council met in an attempt to approve third and final readings of the bylaw because the first attempt, April 18, ended in a tie with Mayor Shane Brienen and councillors Troy Reitsma and Jonathan Van Barneveld being in favour and councillors Tom Euverman, Lisa Mueller and Rebecca Hougen being opposed. Councillor Tom Stringfellow was absent and in a tie vote, a motion is considered failed.
This time all members of council were present and when the vote came, it was Stringfellow voting with Brienen, Reitsma and Van Barneveld for a 4-3 conclusion.
Compared to past meetings, there was no debate as council members appeared to have fully presented their arguments for and against a four per cent increase in previous meetings.
Those favouring the increase said the District had to keep up with inflation and not use its surplus to soften any tax increase blow to avoid even higher increases in the next years when the surpluses are depleted.
Those opposed to the increase said the closure of the Canfor sawmill and the uncertainty as to whether a new one will be built was an economic blow to the community such that a lower increase or no increase at all would ease the community’s financial worries.
But although debate on the tax increase was muted April 27, there was intense discussion when Euverman introduced an amendment to the budget bylaw to shift $565,000 from surpluses to increase the paving budget this year from $635,000 to $1.2 million.
That’s the figure recommended in a study commissioned in the latter part of the last decade as a yearly requirement to keep District roads maintained, Euverman said.
Reitsma immediately opposed the possibility, saying council would be wise to keep its surpluses intact for unknown and uncertain times.
“Councils for the past 30 years have been very good at planning for the unexpected and creating surpluses for us. And it would be to me, it would be a crime for us to take the hard work that they have done and just throw it away,” he said.
Van Barneveld noted that this year’s planned $635,000 expenditure is itself an increase over what had been a traditional paving budget of $300,000 and that the District is forecasting spending $500,000 on paving in any event over the next years.
And while he did not disagree with Euverman’s assessment that more money is needed to maintain and improve District roads, he wasn’t sure surpluses should be used right now.
“I wouldn’t want to allocate any accumulated surplus right now given the uncertainties of the Canfor announcement because we may need an accumulated surplus just to keep the lights on,” Van Barveveld said.
Stringfellow said he was not against paving but, “I don’t know if this is the time to do that.”
Euverman countered by saying the roads are deteriorating to the point where repairs are going to be more costly and that the District does have the money should council decide to vote in favour of his amendment.
“They want us to do something with the taxes they pay, they pay a lot of taxes …. They want something done. Here’s a prime opportunity for us to do something,” he said.
Hougen sided with Euverman, saying spending money on roads is exactly something council should be doing.
“We should be using our money wisely. But if we’re always just going to put it in a bank account and we’ve never going to use it … there actually isn’t any point to having it. [It’s] just going to sit there forever,” she said.
Leading up to the vote on his amendment, Euverman hinted that a council approval to increase this year’s paving budget would then trigger his support instead of his opposition to the budget bylaw.
“I was prepared to go for the four per cent if we could make some deal here but it doesn’t look like it’s going to go anywhere,” he said.
“And I’m really disappointed that there’s no movement. We can do this without adding one cent to the budget without eating any substantial amount in the total reserves and surpluses,” Euverman continued.
Despite that plea, Euverman’s amendment attempt failed by a 5-2 vote with Brienen, Reitsma, Van Barneveld, Stringfellow and Mueller being opposed. Hougen backed Euverman.