The hot topic of the possibility of a special annual property tax levy of up to 2 per cent for the next 10 years dominated Monday's meeting of Guelph City Council.
What was a two-line consent agenda item turned into a lengthy debate that included four delegations at a council meeting that passed the magical four-hour mark.
City staff has proposed the possible tax levy as a way of raising $285 million over 10 years to help pay for the cities aging infrastructure: such things as sewers, water mains and roadways.
That infrastructure has an annual funding deficit in the neighbourhood of $23 million with a $165 million backlog.
Council was not making any decisions on a possible tax levy Monday night, it was only agreeing to have city staff return later this year with more information. It eventually did that, with staff asked to return sometime at the end of summer with a status report and possible recommendations on how the city can address its infrastructure issues.
But not before many had their say.
Several councillors expressed opinions that no matter what kind of possible solutions and options staff come up with, it's not going to significantly address such a huge funding gap.
"We're not likely to address that ($165 million backlog) with a review," Councillor Mike Salisbury said. "I don't see the magnitude of savings to solve the problems.
"We need to do something to specifically target this issue," Salisbury later said, adding that he thought 2 per cent was too high.
Councillor Dan Gibson said a process of looking for internal savings and reviews is part of the "integrity of the process" needed before any possible tax levy is looked at.
All councillors seemed to agree that they wanted the issue brought back to council before budget deliberations begin for 2017.
Kithio Mwanzia, president and CEO of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce, warned that a 2 per cent tax levy would mean lost jobs at some city businesses. He also cautioned it would cast a shadow over the corporate climate in the city.
"Business is looking for signals from city council about how they will proceed in the future in our community," Mwanzia said.
He called for a full city service review and an asset management plan to look at what city assets might be sold or what public/private partnerships might be financially beneficial before a possible special tax.
Later in the meeting Scott Stewart, the city's deputy CAO in charge of infrastructure, development and enterprise services, had some warnings of his own.
Stewart said all municipalities are facing the same infrastructure issues and that he has seen city's issue development freezes because of them.
"If you don't look after your infrastructure, that's where we can end up," Stewart said, adding that infrastructure helps attract business.
Councillor Phil Alt echoed Stewart's tone.
"I'm looking at what impact on business may be if we do not improve our infrastructure," Alt said.
Councillor Karl Wettstein pointed out that the proposed tax was "up to 2 per cent," not necessarily that amount.
"Two per cent is highly unlikely. But if we become desperate, we would have to consider it," Wettstein said.
He also didn't like the idea of "essentially opening up the budget" during the year to start looking for savings.
"Isn't it redundant to start looking for efficiencies now?" asked councillor June Hofland in a similar vein.
Citizen Jason Dodge told council they need to look at savings within city operations and assets to find savings.
"Look within to find ways to make ends meet first," Dodge said.
