A majority of respondents to a municipal survey believe it is acceptable to have a “modest property tax increase,” an infrastructure levy, and continued increases to funding of protective services.
Of 212 people who responded to a 12-question City of Moose Jaw survey during late August and early September, 173 people — or 82 per cent — agreed with city council’s direction to maintain services with a modest property tax increase or expansion of programs where necessary.
Furthermore, 167 people — or 79 per cent — said they agreed with council’s decision to continue to support the current level of funding for protective services, or even increase funding to police and firefighters.
Lastly, 114 people — or 54 per cent — indicated they agreed with council’s decision to develop a dedicated pavement rehabilitation infrastructure levy.
The results of the survey were presented to city council during its Sept. 23 regular meeting. Council voted 6-1 to receive and file the report. Coun. Brian Swanson was opposed.
Survey results
Question 1
Participants were asked to rank programs and services from highest to lowest in importance. The most important categories were: roadways, waterworks infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure, recreation services, parks, a tie between economic development and planning and development, the landfill, and transit.
Question 2
The survey asked if participants would be supportive of a levy of $100 per year per property dedicated to infrastructure renewal projects such as pavement rehabilitation.
Of 211 respondents, 114 (54 per cent) were in favour while 97 (46 per cent) were opposed.
Question 3
The survey explained that the municipality has changed how it invests its reserve funds. Participants were asked how they would like to see those funds spent if additional investment money was generated.
Pavement rehabilitation (74 people) was the first choice, followed by capital requirement as needed (44 people), waterworks infrastructure (41 people), a new outdoor swimming pool (33 people), and something else altogether (19 people).
Question 4
Costs go up annually due to inflation, the survey said. It asked participants if they thought it reasonable for the municipality to increase taxation to recover those increased costs.
There were 129 people (61.14 per cent) who said yes and 82 people (38.86 per cent) who said no.
Question 5
Participants were asked that if they managed the City of Moose Jaw, which three scenarios would best describe their mandate.
There were 113 people (53.81 per cent) who said they would maintain programs and services, which would result in a modest taxation increases each year. This was followed by 60 people (28.57 per cent) who said they would expand programs and services to address areas where the municipality is not providing adequate levels of service, resulting in tax increases above the level of inflation.
Lastly, 37 people (17.62 per cent) said they would reduce programs and services so there was no need for annual tax increases.
Question 6
The police and fire services require about 40 per cent of the municipality’s operating budget. Of those asked, 101 (47.64 per cent) said it was important to continue to support those services at the present budget levels. There were 67 people (31.6 per cent) who said this financial figure should be increased to enhance services, while 44 people (20.75 per cent) said to decrease the financial support to these departments.
Question 7
Participants were told the waterworks utility receives about $2.7 million in funding from municipal taxation. They were asked if they agreed with funding the waterworks utility from general tax revenues.
There were 138 people (65.71 per cent) who said yes and 72 people (34.29 per cent) who said no.
Question 8
Participants were asked what they thought about recreation services aiming for a 50-per-cent recovery rate from the user fees it charged, with the remainder of its operations funding coming from municipal taxation.
This was a close response, with 98 people (46.23 per cent) saying they agreed with this approach; 94 people (44.34 per cent) said they would increase user fees to reduce funding needed from municipal taxation; and 20 people (9.43 per cent) said they would decrease user fees, which would require more funding from municipal taxation.
Question 9
The survey asked if participants agreed with rural residents using city-subsidized services such as recreation and the public library even though they do not pay municipal taxes. There were 118 people (55.66 per cent) who said no and 94 people (44.34 per cent) who said yes.
Question 10
Participants were asked if they would like to see rural residents charged for municipal services they use. An overwhelming number — 141 people/66.51 per cent — said yes and 71 people/33.49 per cent said no.
“Taxing residents is utterly ridiculous and will result in a backlash against the city,” one participant wrote, pointing out rural residents buy groceries here, attend concerts, support sporting activities, eat in restaurants, shop at stores, and go to the casino and spa.
“I believe Swift Current tried to implement a similar policy at one time and the backlash was strong and swift, so please rethink considering this option.”
Question 11
The survey asked what the biggest obstacle was for participants to use Moose Jaw transit bus service.
Eighty-one people (38.39 per cent) said they need their vehicle for their job, 63 people (29.86 per cent) said the buses run too infrequently and it’s quicker to drive, 60 people (28.44 per cent) said other and seven people (3.32 per cent) said buses don’t start early enough in the day.
Of the 60 people who said other, some reasons they gave included they walked or walking was faster; some bus drivers are never on time; they don’t need the service; there was no bus in their area; and the routes were too circuitous and slow.
Question 12
Survey participants were asked what one thing Moose Jaw transit could change to entice them to take a bus. Of the 163 people who answered, some of the answers included adding routes including to the Yara Centre, increased frequency, a better schedule, more efficient and smaller buses, going back to 30-minute routes, and lower fees.
“Sitting and watching the driver play on her phone drives me batty,” one respondent wrote.
The next regular council meeting is Oct. 15.
